Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : “AQIDAH” BINDS THE SAUDIS AND TAKFIRIS

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (31 October 2014)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_street_mimbar/
PLEASE e-mail Suggestions & Criticisms to khutbahs@yahoo.com
It is in such a manner that We make plain Our signs so that the course of the Criminals may become clear.
Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem.
Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), his Noble Companions and Family.
Dear committed Muslims, brothers and sisters…
 
 
"AQIDAH" BINDS THE SAUDIS AND TAKFIRIS
The takfiris that are going around and have been doing so for some time now (and) killing innocent people come from a certain background. They use certain words and they try to explain their actions even though they have no working minds when they do so. It is our responsibility to shed light on their fallacies and their inaccurate statements. If you've ever listened to some of their presentations there are some key words that they use; one of them is al aqidah, the other one is ad da'wah and the other one is at tarbiyah. These are three major words that they dwell on in their presentations and a major word that they latch on to with ferocity is the word aqidah. They used that almost every time they open up an Islamic discussion. The word aqidah is repeated by them multiply times. First of all, the word aqidah does not exist in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah. Their whole construct that is built (or) that is anchored in that word doesn't exist in the Qur'an or the Prophet's hadiths but there are words in the Qur'an that have a linguistic relationship to the word aqidah so we're getting down to the basics. We are going to go to the source to deconstruct all of their presentations when they focus on the word aqidah. The first word that is linguistically related to the word aqidah in the Qur'an is the word aqadat. In Surah An Nisa' Allah says
… and to those whom you have pledged your troth… (Surah An Nisa' verse 33)
Aqadat, this word is related to aqidah only linguistically- it has no shar'i attachment to the word aqidah at all.
 
Another ayah, the very first ayah in Surah Al Maa'idah
Oh you who are divinely and securely committed to the power and authority of Allah- honor your contracts or your covenants… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 1)
Uqud is the plural of aqad and aqad is a contract where two agreements are engaged; that engagement is called aqad which has nothing to do with the word aqidah which these Salafis, Wahabis, takfiris, etc. tell us means belief. "Aqidah means belief" which doesn't exist in the Qur'an or the Sunnah.
 
Another ayah, 235 and 237 in Surah Al Baqarah
And do not proceed with tying the marriage knot… (Surah Al Baqarah verse 235)
The word uqdah is linguistically related to the word aqidah but the combination of these two words in the Qur'an, uqdat an nikah, means tying the marriage knot which has nothing to do with the meanings and implications of the Salafi, Wahabi, takfiri use of the word aqidah.
 
In Surah Ta-Ha, ayah number 27 the word uqdah is mentioned. Musa (alayhi as salaam) is saying
And loosen a tie that I have in my tongue… (Surah Ta-Ha verse 27)
This is not a physical tie. These Wahabi types may think this is a physical tie. They immediately try to give meanings in a physical way. Musa didn't have a physical tie in his tongue. What it means is some type of blurring of speech. Once again, the word uqdah has nothing to do with the word aqidah that they try to give some type of shar'i weight to.
 
In Surah Al Maa'idah, ayah number 89 Allah says
… but He, meaning Allah, will take you to task for oaths that you have sworn in earnest… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 89)
Aaqadtum Al iman here means sworn in earnest or another way or translating this is complicating your iman. So it has nothing to do with aqidah.
 
The last one in Surah Al Falaq
And those who blow on knots. (Surah Al Falaq verse 4)
The word uqad is the word uqdah which means knot.
 
These are all of the linguistically related derivatives of the word aqadah from which the word aqidah comes and none of them have anything to do with the way these killers who substantiate their killing by saying "they refer to the Qur'an and the Prophet" There's nothing in the Qur'an quoted (or) written and nothing expressed by the Prophet that has the word aqidah in it. It's the same thing in the books of hadith. We have some linguistic derivatives of the word aqadah which likewise have nothing to do with the word aqidah that these people use. You'll find in the books of hadith the Prophet had officiated a banner to a certain person which means he's given him a military responsibility to carry a banner on a military expedition. What does that have to do with the Salafi, Wahabi, takfiri understanding of the word aqidah? Nothing! Another word you'll find in the books of hadith if you follow and trail the word aqadah from which aqidah is taken says he tied his belt. In today's way of understanding (it's the) equivalent of saying he tied his belt. What does that have to do with belief, etc.? This is after going through the ayaat in the Qur'an and the hadiths of the Prophet- this is what we come up with. So if you encounter (or) whenever a Salafi comes to you (or) whenever you're listening in on a Salafi, Wahabi discussion and whenever they use that word aqidah rest assured that they are using a word alien to the Qur'an and to the Prophet.
 
These same people, (i.e.) the Salafis (and) Takfiris attack the Asha'ira or the Sunnis who are not part of them- let's put it that way because there are some of us are not very versed on Islamic history (but) there are Sunnis who have nothing to do with Salafis, Wahabis and these- and who cluster around the word aqidah say "why are these Sunnis (i.e.) the Asha'ira using words like al qadim, al johar, al juz'?" These are words (which) if you back to over 1,000 years ago and read the books written by Muslims who don't belong to these Salafi types you'll find words in there that they say "you can't use these words because these are not words used in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah." If we want to literally follow what they are saying you can't use any word not being used in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah. The word juz' that they are saying "you can't use in your Islamic thinking or Islamic explanations or Islamic analysis", (because at that time there was an age of philosophy and different points of view were being discussed- so the Salafis came online and said you can't use these types of words), means a part. What's wrong with using the word "a part" if you're analyzing something as part of that discussion? What's wrong with that? Al Johar means the core (or) the essence. You can't use that word?! Al Qadim (means) from ancient times. There's nothing wrong with that but in their mind if you're discussing matters that are Islamic you can't use these words. They also say to those who are Sufis "you can't use the word Ahl Al Haqiqah or Ahl At Tariqah." These are two terminologies used in Sufi books and literature. Once again the Salafis come in on the line and they say "this is bidah. The Asha'ira are committing bid'ah because they are using words that are not used in the Qur'an and the Sunnah." Mind you, the Asha'ira are not making judgments about others when they are using those words. (It's) the same thing with the Sufis- they are not making judgments against others when they are using these words; but here we have these Salafis, Takfiris, Wahabis using the word aqidah which is not in the Qur'an and the Sunnah and because they are doing that they are passing judgment on the others that the others are not Muslims. We have a problem.
 
If some of them want us to believe the word the word aqidah is synonymous with the word iman we don't find the word aqidah being used synonymously with the word iman in addition to the Qur'an in all of the books of hadith. If you go back to history books and you read what the Sahabis and what the Tabi'in said you will not find one sentence in all of what was recorded from them using the word aqidah. Forget about sahih hadiths and authenticated hadiths, we have some hadiths that are fabricated and some hadiths that are outright lies (but) even in those types of hadiths you will not find the word aqidah. If your lend yourself to the Salafi, Wahabi, Takfiri argument you would find today in their own discussions and meetings they will ask among themselves if they mention any Muslim (who's) not part of them and they want to evaluate him or her they say "what is his or her aqidah?" That's how they speak. So during those first generations of Muslims when no one was using the word there were Munafiqin around, there were traitors, there were less than desirable Muslims yet none of that first generations of Muslims used that word to evaluate other Muslims in particular. So when they anticipate that word with their own notions then their aqidah becomes one, as we mentioned earlier, where you have to believe that "Abu Hanifah is a Kafir." That enters into their definition of aqidah and that Allah has two arms. That's how they think! We don't even know if we can call it thinking! If they're asked, they say "we can't describe it. We just say He has two arms and He has a chest out of whom was created the light of the Angels." We don't know where they come with all of that from but that's their "aqidah" in their own books. Then they go on from there under this title of aqidah and they point their fingers of kufr against Sunnis who don't belong in their way of looking at things and then at Shi'is and then at Ibadhis and then at Sufis and it goes on and on. Anyone who disagrees with them because of this centrality in their minds of aqidah others become Kafirs. Like we said, the word aqidah wasn't mentioned by any of those first generations of Muslims from the Muhajirin (radi Allahu anhum), from the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum), from the Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum), from the Badriyin (radi Allahu anhum), and those who follow them as best as possible. (It's) no where in there! So using the word aqidah is a bid'ah. Let's turn this word bid'ah around and use it against them because when you come to them this is information. If they have contrary information let them present it; but they don't!
 
If we wanted to interchange the two words aqidah and iman it would be like interchanging as salah and spiritual meditation. As salah is as salah- you can't say as salah is spiritual meditation. Al iman is al iman- you can't say al iman is aqidah. The Prophet of Allah says on one occasion concerning the compatibility of a young man and a young lady getting married to each other if a person comes to you and you are satisfied with his deen or his morals then go ahead and get married. (There's) no word (like) aqidah here that was mentioned. (in) the wording in this hadith- they refer so much to the hadith (and) that's fine. We have no problem with them referring to the hadiths as long as the hadiths are sahih hadiths; and not with their evaluation of what is a sahih hadith or not- the Prophet used the word deen. He didn't say aqidah. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are full with these words, (viz.) iman, Islam and deen. These are the three words they substitute for the word aqidah. Instead of using the word deen they use the word aqidah. Instead of using the word Islam they use the word aqidah and instead of using the word iman they use the word aqidah.
 
Then they say As Salaf as salih. That's one of the vocabulary combination words that they use, (i.e.) the virtuous ancestors. When we take a look at the forerunners of Islam (or) the pioneers of Islam (or) those first generations of Muslims called As Salaf but among those Salaf there were Munafiqun, among that Salaf there were undesirable Muslims, among those Salah there were all types of people besides as salih. Of course, among them were as salih also (i.e.) the virtuous types. So when they come and use this combination of words (i.e.) As Salaf as salih the impression is everyone in that era was virtuous. The correct way of wording it is as salih min As Salaf (or) those who are virtuous from that generation or that generation or those pioneers. If you want further breakdown of this as salih min as Salaf they would be Al Muhajirin, Al Ansar and those who follow them not the five or eight individuals that they shed lime light on, (viz.) Ibn Taymiyah, Al Izz ibn Salam, ibn Al Qayyim, ibn Abd Al Wahab, etc. This, in their perception, this is As Salaf as salih. They say "there is no khayr in Islam without Sunnah." What do they mean by this? Of course, that statement stands on its own without any critique. No one can argue that; but then you go a step further and ask what do you mean by Sunnah? They mean by that "takfir and dhulm and Isra'eeliyat and tajsim." Their definition of Sunnah is "to point a finger of kufr at another Muslim- that is Sunnah." Their definition of Sunnah is "don't take issue with an oppressive ruler- that is Sunnah. Don't scrutinize the hadiths to see which of these hadiths have Isra'eeliyat in them, meaning forged hadiths traced to Bani Isra'eel. These types of hadiths have to stay in hadith literature- that is a Sunnah." Then the other Sunnah is tajsim. When Allah says in the Qur'an
Allah's hand is above their hand… (Surah Al Fath verse 10)
They want you to understand the hand as you would look at it in your own hand- that is a hand. You can't understand this as
Allah's power or force is over theirs (or) above theirs… (Surah Al Fath verse 10)
You can't understand it like that or else you are courting kufr. This type of mentality, if we can call it that, makes certain Muslims hesitant. Let's say the truth- they have a lot of money. These people have a lot of money. They're combining takfir with treasury, they're combining this misunderstanding of Islam with a cash flow that is generous towards those who belongs to them. So if a Muslim wants to steep himself or herself in the Qur'an and the Sunnah and then wants to look at some of the events in history for example the issue of Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) stating a wasiyyah to Umar (radi Allahu anhu). In their mind if a Muslim wants to look at this issue (and) bring all the information that is available about it you can't do something like that even though- you see, they don't want to face the contradictions in their own head- they say "the Sahaba is the Sahaba (and) you can't say anything about the Sahaba." But when you come and tell them Imam Ali and Talha (radi Allahu anhuma) as an example of two Sahabis who took issue with Abu Bakr's wasiyyah to Umar because it wasn't inclusive of shura (they say "no, you can't approach this matter and think like that." Why? What's wrong? Something happened in our history (and) we can't use our intellect (and) our God-given mind to look at what happened? We find that Muslims at that time had two opinions: one of them centered around Ali and another one centered around Umar. In today's world, (without passing the negative meaning of the word), it's like there were two parties there- two Islamic Parties. Some of them saw that Ali was more qualified to lead the Muslims and they had their explanation and rationalization for it. First of all, Ali became a Muslims before Umar by a stretch of six years, he is the first male to become a Muslim. This is agreed upon by all the Sunni Ulema'. Umar was preceded to Islam by 130 Sahabis who became Muslims before him in Makkah. Ali had to his credit a military record in which he put to an end the lives of tens if not scores of Mushrikin in the battles against the opponents of the Muslims. As far as the record shows and we can see Umar has killed in war one opponent of Islam. Ali had more knowledge than the rest of the Sahaba and this is a consensual issue. There's no disagreement among two Muslims about this. Then the Prophet says to his daughter I have you married to Ali (who) comes out ahead of all the rest as far as his knowledge, as far as his tolerance and as far as his acquiescence to Islam having not one iota of history against Islam. This cannot be said of all the Sahabis and we're not here trying to denigrate any of the bona fide Sahabis, So Ali was closer to the Prophet than Umar. He is the husband of his daughter, he is the father of the Prophet's grandsons (or) grandchildren, he is the cousin of the Prophet, he was the head of Bani Hashim after the Prophet passed away and Banu Hashim were the head of Quraysh. This is the way one party saw the issue. Come to these Salafis and say to them open your own books and read for yourselves. Those who saw Umar more qualified for that position saw in his personality one who could take issue with the schismatics who are liable to breakaway from an Islamic togetherness. He was like a man of state. We covered this territory in a khutbah many many moons ago, (i.e.), the position of these individuals in Quraysh who later on became Muslims. Umar had, what you may call in today's language, a diplomatic position. So people who argued for him assuming this position said he had that experience in his life. They said when Umar became a Muslim the rest of the Muslims went public with their Islam. Before that Muslims were hiding, Muslims were underground (but) when he became a Muslim the Muslims were no longer behaving behind the scenes. He participated in the battles of Islam, etc. That was another point of view. What's wrong with looking at our own history (and) reading and understanding? What's wrong with that- you Salafis, you Wahabis and you Takfiris? Looking at this is not going to cause us to become enemies of each other; because we have extremists (so) whether you look at these two parties as a scholar is one thing and when you look at these two parties as a fanatic, (and we have fanatics on both sides), is another thing. We're not here promoting fanaticism. We're going to have to summarize this by saying that these people today who are armed, financed (and) trained and then they go around doing all these things giving excuses to foreign powers to come in dividing the Muslims almost every area where division is possible- whether it is religious, whether it is ethnic, whether it is geographic, whatever; all of these. Their whole concept is alien to Allah and His Prophet. We know these are words that not many people have the courage to say in public but it's the truth. We have to state it. They dwell among us. Some of you come into contact with them frequently. You have to understand who they are and what purposes they serve and if they are ignorant you have to help them out of their ignorance and if they are hostile you have to make them understand that they are hostile without any Qur'anic or Prophetic foundations. So communicate the message of Allah and do not fear anyone besides Allah.
 
Dear committed Muslims…
We are aware of the atrocities and the pitched battles that are causing Muslims to bleed to death. The complicating factor now being that we have Muslims in the name of Islam killing others who they perceive not being one of them. But we have to take a look at the sponsor of these Takfiris. Where did they come from? Who gave them the background and the shelter and the argument that they have today to do what they are doing? It's the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Let's take a look at that kingdom that has sponsored and financed and spread the word of that aqidah fallacious presentation. One of them, a Shaykh who is well known in their society, his name is Muhammad Al Arifi. He went to hajj this year and on his tweeter he just mentioned a few words criticizing the transportation system during the hajj- to be more precise right now they have a type of train there that takes some hujjaj from one place to another so he said "this is insufficient" (or) something along those lines. They arrested the person (who is) one of them because they sensed from this (that) if one of them begins to criticize their administration then their whole administration of the hajj, of Makkah and Al Madinah is going to begin to unravel. So they couldn't tolerate one of them saying "look, you need to improve this." Then the Mufti there came to say some foul words against him. Now these belong to the same mentality, to the same background (and) to the same indoctrination but still this is what is happening.
 
There's a scholar in Saudi Arabia who has books on Islam. His name is Shaykh Hassan Farhaan Al Maliki. He has written books. He's not a Salafi (and) he's not a Takfiri but he lives among them. He's written books to deconstruct all of this Wahabi nonsense. Last week or ten days ago all of a sudden he disappeared. No one knows where he is!
 
There's a news item that appeared in one of their newspapers called Uqadh- remember we're bringing this to your attention because this is the environment from which the Takfiris are operating from. This news item in their Saudi Uqadh newspaper said "their moral police, (they call them rijal hayat al munkar), went to a certain residence and they told the man in the house you are under arrest." Of course they went in by force. This is in a neighborhood called As Suwaidi in Ar Riyadh. So they detained him. They said "we are detaining you. We're taking you to jail because you are in the privacy of another non-Mahram lady." This person said to them "I swear to you she's my wife." They didn't believe him so they took him there and they took her with him trying to accuse both of them of having illicit sexual relations being a non husband and a non wife to each other. So after interrogation they called the father of that lady to the police station and they began questioning him. He said "this is my daughter and she is married to this man who is my son-in-law." So after that what did they do? Did anyone bring them to task? Did this news item make its rounds? Nothing! Probably if you didn't hear it here you didn't hear it anywhere- and the whole issue died there. This is how they intrude on the innocence of other people.
 
Another one of these news items out of that kingdom of evil- there's a lady who works there. You know they have a lot of people that they get labor from around the world, from the Far East, from Africa, from Asia, from everywhere. They get this labor and they abuse them. So one lady spent 16 years in that kingdom. She came from one of those countries outside of Arabia- it wasn't disclosed where this lady came from; probably our guess is Thailand or the Philippines or Indonesia or it could be another place. She went missing for 16 years. She's married and she has children and she was working to support her family overseas. Finally when her family got enough resources and went looking for her they discovered that she was working for a Saudi, of course as a maid in his house and he dis-communicated her from the rest of the world. Then after this issue was taken by this lady's relatives to their courts what did the court do? They told the person who did this, one of their own- a Saudi, probably a Najdi, a Wahabi- we don't know what type; but anyways that atmosphere created this- then at the end their Shar'i court tells him "well you have to pay her for the 16 years she has been working for you." That's it! This is how much human rights they have! Talk about human rights- why doesn't anyone enter this news item under the title of human rights in newspapers, in journals, in the media everywhere, in the khutbahs on Fridays?! Why?!
 
Now we have these Dawa'ish (i.e.) those who belong to Da'ish all around the world. Some of them are students in places like Australia and here in the United States. They leave- they're going to Syria and Iraq for their Wahabi defined Jihad even though their consulates and their educational attaché's are telling them "don't do this." You see the contradiction they live in?! They are the ones who germinated this problem and now they are trying to extinguish it! Same people. Over there in the market places (and in) shopping places they close. If there are young men who want to go to a shop or a mall they find it difficult to do that if they are not in the presence of their family. They are going to be suspect! Now what type of social psychology is this that a young man who wants to walk in the streets just like an average person is suspect because of his sexual tendencies? You begin to think we're living in some type of zoo! It's a fact of life over there! For the first time they opened a park only for women! Where in the world did you hear (of) a park only for women? What did they do with this park? They put a fence around it making it possible for someone outside to see women walking in the park and then they made it opaque. Not only is there a fence, there are also barriers of glass or otherwise in which you can't see into the park. What type of park is this? We have problems. These people who occupy religious establishments with their brain washing and with their money are the ones who say "it is haram to observe certain religious occasions. It's haram." We can't meet on the day that the Prophet went to Al Quds and then to Al Mi'raj. For us to commemorate Al Isra' and Al Mi'raj is a bid'ah. We can't do that. Right now we're approaching the new year- this new year, to them, the first of Muharram is a bid'ah. You can't dwell on the significance of what this means! You can extend that to all the occasions that we have in our history. They also say "cartoons are haram." They say "if you are going to kiss the mus'haf it is haram" even "if you take some roses or flowers to a loved one of yours that is haram." Recently, (this was probably on Youtube and probably for those of you who are text-savvy you can go dig this up), one of them, (i.e.) a Saudi who volunteered to go to kill other Muslims in the North of Syria was shown carrying a severed head of a woman who was fighting with the Kurds. These of his type felt elated. They felt excited- Allahu Akbar, Takbiraat and all of this at seeing this. They celebrated this ugly act but what was their question mark about all of this? They didn't question the inhumanity of such a creature to behead a woman prisoner of war and then have her head in front of the camera while he holds her head by clutching on her hair. The hair of her head is clutched in his hand. (To) these Dawa'ish (and) these Takfiri types the killing and the barbaric acts and all of that was Allahu Akbar but they had a question. "Isn't it haram for a Muslim man to have his hand on the hair of a female?" That is what bothered them! This is the psychology! This is the disease that we are dealing with! It reminds us (of) when the Khawarij killed a Sahabi by the name of Khabb'bab ibn Al Arat (radi Allahu anhu), they killed his wife (and) opened her pregnant stomach and to them that was a service to Allah. To these Khawarij at that time this was a service to Allah. In the meantime there was a date tree in that same atmosphere (and) a date fell from the tree down to the side walk (or) the street where pedestrians walk. (Of course, at that time they didn't have these types of side walks). Then these Khawarij began to argue about the feature of this date- "is it halal or is it haram? To whom does it belong?" Now you know the magnitude of the problem that we have.
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 24 October 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)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : THE NEED FOR SELF-CRITICISM

 


THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (24 October 2014)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_street_mimbar/
PLEASE e-mail Suggestions & Criticisms to khutbahs@yahoo.com
It is in such a manner that We make plain Our signs so that the course of the Criminals may become clear.
Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem.
Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), his Noble Companions and Family.
Dear committed Muslims…
 
 
THE NEED FOR SELF-CRITICISM
This journey into the unknowns of the Muslim public mind has been an extensive one. We've tried to approach the issue of Islamic cohesiveness and togetherness from many angles. We've tried our best to highlight the positives that bring Muslims together and to diminish the differences that tend to distance Muslims from each other. Yet we still need to do more to conquer this self generated ignorance that locks hands with those who have information and use it to the detriment of our lives and our societies. We've quoted the ayah from Surah Aal Imran and we'll quote it again; maybe it will penetrate. Remember, this ayah during the details of the khutbah.
… and bear in mind (or) be conscious of Allah's bounties and blessings upon you for you were enemies and He has acquainted and reconciled your hearts with each other so you have become due to His ni'mah, blessings and bounty brothers to each other… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
In a nutshell this ayah exhorts us to be together (and) for all of us to hold on to the extension of guidance that has come to us from Allah; but then what do we have? Another ayah reinforcing this ayah, number 46 from Surah Al Anfal, 
And don't be at disputational differences with yourselves because you will fail and your momentum will dissipate and you will lose motivation and you will lose energy… (Surah Al Anfal verse 46)
OK- now we are going to (and) we know some people are going to say after the khutbah that it's unnecessary to go into the details or the explanations of what is at the root of Islamic division and we rely that if we don't do that then this is going to remain a festering problem that we are not going to be able to solve. A sincere Muslim is one who takes a look at his own self- however way he defines his own self- and then begins to weed out those inclinations and those internal divisive thoughts that cause us now to pay very dearly as you may see happening in the different areas around the world. One issue we want to bring to your attention is we have quite a heroic history. We had the Ka'bah itself destroyed at one time. We had Al Madinah itself assaulted and many innocent people were killed and the atrocities of war happened in those two areas to begin with, (i.e.) Makkah (with) the destruction of the Ka'bah and the attack on Al Madinah and then prisoners of war and rape and the killings that took place. All of this we had. Then we had the occupation of Al Quds. (Do) you think the occupation of Al Quds is something new? Rethink yourself! This is the second time around we had Al Quds occupied in the flagrant, brutal military fashion that is in front of our own eyes today. We had Baghdad occupied. If you think that (that) coalition of the willing 14 (or) 12 years ago or whatever it was was the first time something like that happened- no, it wasn't. It happened before. We lost Al Andalus. These things don't happen just because we are free of error. There's something going on that causes these types of things to happen and at the bottom of it there's profound psychology that brings these things on but it hasn't happened that we have some thinking minds who will try. The military history- even though we don't read (and) we don't write our own history; (and) we don't read our own history if we write it- but history bears out that there was military assaults invasions and occupations from Europe, from China (and) from other directions. We suffered from all of that, (but we ask you), (and) this is where our minds are absent- when we speak about military occupations can anyone in that context whether it's in the distant past or it's in the current present tell us what our internal thoughts are? What the khutbahs are like in the Masajid? What type of presentations and lectures and talks we are presenting in public to our own selves at our conferences, at our occasional meetings, in the Masajid whatever the occasion may be? What goes on when these military invasions and occupations occur? What are we thinking? Have we elevated our Islamic mind (i.e.) the ayaat of the Qur'an and the hadiths of the Prophet to deal with these issues when they occur or preferably before they occur so we can pre-empt them? Or are we busy with some other topics (or) some other subjects? Alas! Regrettably we are busy with trivial issues! When all of this is happening- in the past and in the present- we are busy with marginal topics. You can go to your Masjid of choice (or) to your Islamic centre of choice (or) to your congregation of choice, (we've said this many times), you pick; go there (and) listen to the khutbah, listen to the lecture, listen to the sermon (and) listen to the conversations among those who are present before or after a jum'ah or an Eid or whatever gathering; listen to what people- your Muslim brothers and sisters- are saying and you are hard pressed to find that they consider themselves to be Muslims first and foremost before anything else. No! Here's where the problem is. They're going to consider themselves belonging to some type of madhhab or belonging to some type of nationality or belonging to some type of race or belonging to some other type of whatever gathering that they feel they belong to and Islam is there as a decorative. It's a fancy thing that they place on that most important thing that they belong to! Then when you listen closely to them- it doesn't matter; (as we said), pick your Mosque- anyone, anywhere; of course this is in 90% of the cases. We don't want to say absolutely everywhere but in 90% plus of the cases this is what happens- all of them are proud of their early history, whether they are Sunnis or whether they are Shi'is, whether they consider themselves Ithna Asharis or whether they consider themselves Shafi'is. However way they define themselves all of them are very proud of this early Islamic history and mind you, each one of them has their own way of explaining (and) interpreting that history and still everyone is proud. Among all of this crowd there are those who are frank enough to attribute that belief to that history, not to the Qur'an (or) not to the Prophet (but) to that history. History has its faults and has its flaws but still they are these supremacists types. They think this is who they are and where they belong and you'll hear names. Everyone, whatever Islamic background a person comes from, has the most honorific respect for Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu)- from whichever school of thought, from whichever background, from whichever race, nationality, etc. but then when you just go a little further you'll find that the information that they have about Ali, (all of it is not necessarily correct information but whatever information they have), the deeper you dig into it the more divided you become from the other Muslim and this is across the board. You would think that understanding a personality like that would bring Muslims closer together but there's something in our history, (and this is where we have to do some house cleaning), that divides us from each other. It's not in the Qur'an (and) it's not in the Prophet; it's in our reading of history that we begin to feel that we don't belong to the other Muslim. Something is wrong here. And (its) the same thing with Imam Ja'far As Sadiq, the same thing is with Al Imam Al Husein (radi Allahu anhu), the same thing is with Al Hasan Al Basri, the same thing is with Al Imam Zayd (radi Allahu anhu) and to take it a little further the same thing is with the initiators of schools of thought. Al Imam Ash Shafi'i, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, etc. There's no one who generally speaking on the surface of it has any divisive issue with them but the problem begins when you begin to dig deep inside the history books- that's when you begin to realize that you're going to have to become divisive or "I can't agree with the other Muslim because such and such history tells me about certain things about myself and certain things about the other Muslim." So your reference book is what? The history books or your reference books should be Allah and His Prophet?! To try to simplify this, these history books are in two categories basically: history books belonging to those who consider themselves Sunnis and history books belonging to those who consider themselves Shi'is. We catch quite a bit of flack because some people are the product of reading that history! They're not the product of reading the Qur'an and the Prophet, they're the product of reading that history so they come to yours truly here and say "why do you speak about Sunnis" because they consider me a Shi'i. On the other side they say "why do you speak about Shi'is" because that other side considers yours truly here a Sunni. If yours truly wanted to listen to them we wouldn't be speaking about anyone. We probably wouldn't have khutbahs. If you can't speak then what are you're going to do? Stand up and look?! Non verbal communication?! Not many of those who belong to either of these two sides realize that previously in our own history we had those who were called Al-Mu'tazilah. They were not considered Sunnis per se and they were not considered Shi'is per se. They were an independent group. It was a very strong current at one time in the Islamic world. These were basically rationalists and because there was a clash between them and the government ruling during the time of Bani Al Abbas (or) the Abbasis they lost that confrontation and they sought of disappeared. They had manuscripts in Egypt, in Al Yemen, in Europe. Our history has been stolen! You'll find their manuscripts in certain European capitals. Those who went into Muslim territories in the past hundreds of years and stole our heritage and placed it in their museums and in their universities and in their think tanks! Maybe, if we had enough energy, enough unity among ourselves, enough confidence in Allah and His Prophet and in our understanding of Allah and His Prophet we can revisit this lost chapter in our history and understand who these people were. So when we take these two segments of Muslims, (i.e.) the Sunnis and basically in today's world you can break them down into, (we're not talking in the fiqhi sense of the word or schools of thought; we're speaking about doctrine or as some in this category of people would prefer to call it, al aqidah), there are Al Asha'ira… You come to an average Sunni and you tell him "you're an Ash'ari." He'll tell you "what??!" He will exclaim "what do you mean? What are you saying?" He doesn't know he's an Ash'ari. That's because once again there's a degree of ignorance that, once again, has set in and some of us don't even know who we are. So in this broad lump of Sunnis in this world there are the Ash'aris. The Ash'aris in a nutshell are the ones who found middle ground between the rationalists, (i.e.), the Mu'tazilis who disappeared and the literalists- as'haab al aql wa as'haab an naql. They found the middle ground there and they were called Al Ash'aris pertaining to Al Ash'ari who was the scholar that crystallized this middle ground. Then there are those who call themselves the Salafis. In the Sunni context there's also those who consider themselves Salafis. These are the types who always unfailingly repeat "they belong to as salaf as salih, the virtuous ancestors." When you go back into their history and their internal thoughts they go back to the Sahabah to At Tabi'in and from there they take on ibn Hanbal and ibn Taimiyah and ibn Abd Al Wahab until we wind up with today's Salafis and Wahabis and neo-Salafis and all of these other groups that we have in our world today. Within these two sets of "Sunni Muslims" we have preponderant ignorance. A Salafi reads about Al Ash'ari from his own history books. Al Ash'ari reads about As Salafi from his own history books and we wind up not knowing each other and part of our life on this earth is to come to know each other.
… so you come to mutually know each other. (Surah Al Hujurat verse 13)
We don't mutually know each other. This is hard to say but it is the truth- Sunnis don't mutually know each other and the same thing we can go flip to the other side, (i.e.) to the Shi'is; basically among the Shi'is there are two groups. Just like among the Sunnis there's basically two groups among the Shi'is also there's basically two groups- Al Imamiyah and Az Zaydiyah. They have things that they say of themselves. They're a little smarter, may be in one sense, not to bring the differences out into the open. Some Sunnis have a tendency to do that (and) that's why we have this takfiri issue that we're trying to trail by this elongated introduction. So here, once again, we have ignorance. You come to an Imami Shi'i and ask him "what do you know about a Zaydi Shi'i?" He's blank! The same thing with a Zaydi Shi'i. You come and ask him, even though he will know a little better, but still he's sort of ignorant of who the Imami Shi'is are. When we are ignorant of each other, we'll go a step forward, (and) we'll say when we are misinformed about each other who is going to be happy with this? Who's going to take advantage of this? The people right now who are visiting us with these battles, confrontations and wars. These are the ones who are happy. "Oh look- we can go amongst these Muslims and stir these differences up because they don't know themselves." This is probably the way they are speaking in their backrooms. "You know, these Muslims- a Shi'i doesn't know anything about a Sunni. We mean they know what they are told in their history books and thank God if they refer to their history books they don't refer to their Qur'an and their Prophet and in their history books they have all of these divisions." They say this across the board concerning all other Muslims- but they study us. We don't study ourselves?! They study us! We should study ourselves to become united, they study us to divide us. Who's winning? Look at the world- who's winning? Then within these we said As Sunni is Asha'ira, As Salafiyah and Ash Shi'ah are Imamiya and Zaydiya and within them there are differences. They're not all the same. You think these people right now who are planning (and) are strategizing don't take into account these discrepancies among us (and) these defaults we have because we refuse (to look at them). You go to the person who gives the khutbah in a Masjid like this- in a less Masjid or a larger Masjid- and tell them "why don't you speak about the real issues? Allah has spoken about the real issues, aren't you supposed to be an amplifier of what Allah is saying?" They say "you know brother don't bother us with this. Don't rock the boat. Live and let live." It's become so ugly if we go deep down inside these history books- it's not the Qur'an, it's not the Sunnah- these are people who wrote some of their understanding about Islamic issues and you find that the Salafis condemn the Ash'aris and they give them a title like makhanith al Mu'tazilah because remember the Salafis are the literalists and the Mu'tazillah are the rationalists. So the Salafis say of the Ash'aris who took a midway between the two "they are the units of the Mu'tazilis." This is how bad it gets. (The word some should be introduced before every sentence that we previously said and that we're going to say from now on because this doesn't apply absolutely to 100% of all of them. Obviously anyone in his thinking mind would know that but we have to qualify it because there are some people out there who listen to this khutbah electronically who are fishing for "controversial statements or sentences"). Some of the Asha'ira say of the Salafis "they are the little chicks of the graven Yahud." In the middle of all of this where there is an imbalance- emotionally we're charged against each other and rationally we were empty towards each other, that's the atmospherics we are living in- there are some Ulema' who were balanced. When and where is it more appropriate then to mention them at a khutbah? We will; beginning with a person who wrote a book called Ithaar Al Haqq ala Al Khalq (or) Preferring Haqq to People (or) Giving Preference to Haqq Over People (by) Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Wazir. This was a scholar of about maybe 600 or 700 years ago, at least. Another scholar who's balanced in this charged atmosphere is Salih ibn Mahdi ibn Mu'qbiri. He has a book by the name Al Ilm Ash Shamikh fi Tafdhil Al Haqq ala Al Aaba'i wa Al Masha'ikh (or) Colossal Knowledge in preferring Al Haqq over Fathers and Ancestors. There's Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Al Ameer As San'ani. His book is Iqadh Al Fiqra (or) Stimulating Thought. Another scholar who didn't get caught in this emotional exchange of fire is Jamal Ad Deen Al Qasimi. His book is Tarikh Al Juhamiyah wa Al Mu'tazilah (or) The History of The Juhamis and The Mu'tazilis and another book called Al Jarh wa At Ta'dhil. So don't say, (even though we are in bad shape today), that we didn't have (balanced scholars). And right now we're not referring (to contemporary scholars). We have contemporary scholars along these lines. The reason we don't mention the contemporary scholars is because there are many stereotypical impressions about them. We wish we were mature enough and we don't mean here you and me because this khutbah is heard by hundreds of people every week beyond us and we thank Allah that many of them who tune in are mature and we wish the overwhelming majority of them were mature enough for us to mention the contemporary scholars and Ulema' who have not been overtaken by this undue polarizing emotionalism.
 
OK- now in these books written way back in history we find some far'i issues. You know, in Islam we have usul and we have furu'; we have the fundamental issues of Islam and then we have the branch issues of Islam. In some of these books the branch issues have become foundational issues?! What do we mean by that? There are chapters that have been developed in these references that deal with As Sahaba, Ad Dajjaal, Al Imam Al Mahdi, Al Jahr bi Al Basmalah, Al Masah Ala Al Khuffayn, Some of these references that people refer to eclipsing the Qur'an and the Prophet in which they've made certain issue issues that define whether a person is a Muslim or not- that's how terrible it has become! So if a certain person does not honor a certain Sahabi he is, according to some, automatically omitted from the definition of being a Muslim. Where did this come from? Is there any ayah (or) any hadith that substantiate this? None! But its there. This is how people judge other people (or) how Muslims judge other Muslims. There are people who say "if you question the narrative about Dajjaal (or) the anti-Christ, (as is the common mind on this), you're not a Muslim." Where is this? Where do you find this? Which ayah in the Qur'an leads you in that direction? Or which hadith? Of course, in this sense there are fabricated hadith which they refer to but substantiated consensual hadiths- where? As important as the issue of Al Imam Al Mahdi is, it is not an issue of divisiveness. If you encounter a Muslim who doesn't know anything about Al Imam Al Mahdi are you going to say "oh, he's not a Muslim?" In the salah some Muslims begin reciting Al Fatihah or a surah in the Qur'an without saying out loud the basmalah. They say it to themselves. What- are you going to make an issue that that person is a Muslim or he is not a Muslim? His salah is valid? His salah is not valid? This is how far we have deteriorated. Then, as trivial as it may seem but it's a fact, in the Hanbali school of thought (and the) good thing sometimes when a person goes through this literature he says Alhamdulillah that Muslims right now are not aware of some of these details of our history; but then on the other hand you would say we wish thinking Muslims are aware of these issues so that we don't make that same mistake once again. There was a raging fiqhi issue among the scholars of a certain time during the time of ibn Hanbal and before him in which- listen to this, the issue of wiping on al khufayn. A khuf is a peculiar leather shoe. Ahmad ibn Hanbal the Faqih (or) the scholar said it is permissible, of course if you had made wudhu before that in the day. There's a little condition placed here but at the end he says it's permissible. Those who belong to the Shi'i schools of thought and to the Khawarij schools of thought said no, it's not permissible. Then an argument issues between both sides. Finally, this issue is elevated in the Hanbali books of history and fiqh- this is a fiqhi issue. It's not an usuli issue, it's not a doctrinaire issue- (and) in some of these historical references to become a judgmental issue. So if someone doesn't wipe on his khuf he's suspect. Suspicion sets in by other Muslims, "why aren't you doing that?" Whether you do it or don't do it you become suspect! This is like al masah or al ghusl of your feet in performing your wudhu- issues like this! Issues that are to do with Dajjaal (and) Al Mahdi purely speaking (and) strictly speaking are what is called ashraat as sa'ah (or) the indicators of the eminent approach of the final day. The final day is a Qur'anic doctrinaire principle. One of the foundations of iman is (that) all Muslims are sure that there is al yawm al aakhir. There's no argument about that. We all agree on that. Now if we want to enter into these discussions about the indicators of the eminent approach of the final day (i.e.) Dajjaal (and) Imam Al Mahdi, (and) these issues some may say yes (and) some may say no. So why make this an issue of you're a Muslim and you're not a Muslim?! At that time when Dajjaal and Al Imam Al Mahdi are present we can see why this becomes an issue because he is present but we're going argue this issue all the way to the warfront and become enemies of each other because we have different perceptions or different ideas about it?! That's what these Dhalimin (and) these military industrial complexes (and) these politicians, etc. want us to do and we fall into it!
 
Here is where we come to a little delicate area and that is since the Prophet passed away there was a very significant political understanding of leadership called Al Imamah and the Shi'is believed in this concept (and) the Mu'tazila believed in this concept but the those who call themselves Sunnis, even though they had no problem with the word itself but they haven't developed that into something like a political theory, (to use today's social science vocabulary). They were concerned with keeping the Muslims together therefore they don't want to go and create civil wars here and there and all over even though many who consider themselves bona fide Sunnis are convinced that you have to confront a ruler who is a Dhalim. Al Khuruj ala Adh Dhulm is within this Sunni context but it wasn't developed. There were no explanations of leadership and all of this. So what happened during the time of Ahmad ibn Hanbal- and this is why when you read about these Salafis you'll always find them tracing themselves back to certain personalities leading all the way back to Al Faqih Ahmad ibn Hanbal- he said (and) these are in the Hanbali books, obeying individuals who have authority even if they were oppressive and lacking justice (and) even if they were offensive you can't rise up against them… These are their words quote, unquote … unless you see them with your own eyes committing flagrant kufr about which we have incontrovertible evidence from Allah. At that time it's permissible to carry arms against them (and) to oppose them by force and only then. Now when you come to these people (and) unfortunately they don't think; you try and tap on them to have a better person out of them but because they don't think you can't take this discussion a step forward. Tell them, OK, look at today's world, isn't there a kufr bawaah that those who are ruling over the Muslims represent? But because they just want to refer to this statement and similar statements (they can't see it). There's another Hanbali "scholar" by the name of Al Barbahari who said- and we will quote because these problems of takfir today (and) of the divisions and the bloodshed among Muslims can be attributed not to an ayah or a hadith but to statements like this- it is not permissible for any individual to spend one night without having a leader or an Imam who is either virtuous or in flagrant opposition to Allah. How is this? Anyone of these can be your leader? You say that this is your reference point?! Where is the ayaat and the hadith that support this type of statement? And he goes on. Another one of these scholars that they quote, (i.e.) ibn Taymiyah- they call him Shaykh Al Islam. It's not necessary to call him Shaykh Al Islam. Ibn Taymiya says- and we quote, listen to this, he's talking about Muslims- Muslims being patient with the oppression of the rulers and their injustice is the foundation of Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah. (Do) you see where the problems arise? Where did this come from? Obviously you're going to have governments who are supporting these types of scholars, these types of writers (and) these types of speakers who are pounding in the public mind through mass media and through paid speakers in Masajid around the world "be obedient to your rulers. You cannot take issue with your rulers." They give this a religious basis and religious flavor and then they misquote. They quote an ayah out of context. The ayah is in Surah Ash Shura, ayah 30. It says
Whatever misfortune comes your way it's because of what you do… (Surah Ash Shura verse 30)
Meaning the Muslims not the rulers; the poor Muslim father and mother, brother and sister who are struggling everyday to come home with a loaf of bread and something to feed their children, that's if they can find that! They say that this ayah applies to the average Muslim and then they take that a step forward and they say the reason you have these bad rulers is because of what you are doing meaning you deserve them. Here is where they come full circle. OK- if it's because of what we are doing then we have to change what we are doing. If we are acquiescent and we are passive and therefore we have these types of illegitimate rulers then we have to step out of our passivity and we have to step out of our indifference and take issue with these.
Allah's not going to change the social condition of a people until they change their social psychology. (Surah Ra'd verse 11)
Allah's not going to change our politics (and) our economics until we change the way we are approaching Allah through these marginal references and reposition ourselves with Allah and His Prophet.
 
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
If you could just condense the first khutbah with all the previous khutbahs before about the fanaticism, the prejudice and the bigotry that comes out of these people (and) these types of individuals who at the end of the day are Muslims. They are wrong- they are viciously wrong (and) they are deadly wrong! If you put all that together you can understand. Right now, in the past week we had the Saudi government, who is permitted to rule because it finances division among the Muslims, pass a judgment on an Islamic scholar and activist and condemned him to death. Their legal system doesn't have an appeal. That cannot be appealed. They tell us "right now it needs the signature of the king. Everything else has been done. (They're) just awaiting that signature and this activist scholar will be on his way to execution square." We can't look at this in a simplistic manner. We come across some individuals who will tell you, "you know we should become buddy buddies with the Saudis. There should be some type of understanding between the Islamic people of self determination (and) the Islamic movement in the world. Those of a revolutionary Islamic impulse and pulse should approach the Saudis and try and figure out some amicable arrangement with them." How are you going to figure out? Look, do they give you the opportunity to do that? We have people who whisper these ideas among themselves. They're not brave enough to come out and say it as it is (or) the way they think. Then they react. All of these months and years they say "let's come. Remember at the time when there were good relations with the Saudis." We're talking about whether these are Sunnis or Shi'is; both sides from time to time will come to you and say "you know, let's get along. We have a lot of things in common. We disagree on things but there is some things in common. Let's work on those and all this." A Muslim in his good heart and with his inclination to do what is right tends to agree with that, "yes why not" but do they let you do something like that?! You're extending your hand, will they extend their hand? That's the issue right there! Why don't you look at the issue? Don't be blind sighted. These are not that type. If anyone has had enough of the Saudis it should be us out here in the street. 31 years- have they changed? Have you seen these people who rule inside the Masjid? Have they ever walked this way? Have they ever extended their hand? Have they ever said As Salaamu Alaykum? Ever?! In these 32 years? Are these the types? They look at us out here as Kafirs. Let's be frank and blunt about this, they think "oh yeah, these are Kafirs. Let them pray in the street." They are the holiest people in the world and here we are here and after all of this we are supposed to make believe none of this is happening and go to them and say "hey let's get along here. Let's have bilateral agreements and let's, you know, let bygones be bygones and all of this stuff." This is a history. This is not just a regime. This is a history and if you're not capable of understanding this history then just step out. At least don't get involved. Don't become a catalyst for the vices that come out of the Arabia Peninsula. We were speaking today about a scholar who is condemned to dead by this regime that came out of the history that we were just talking about in the first khutbah- that's the type of history it has. If it begins with executing a Shi'i scholar it will go on. The next one it will pick up will be a Shi'i Zaydi, that will be followed by an Ibadhi scholar, that will be followed by a Mu'tazili scholar and then they'll come to the furthest from them (i.e.) the followers of Abu Hanifa. They will come to them (and say) "you are Kafirs also." You see, they don't say this in public, they say this in private. If they have the power and if they have the means they'll go on and no one will be safe accept those who tow their line. Where is Allah (and) where is His Prophet? Where are they in all of this? They don't figure into this?! This is exactly where the problem is. They don't want you and me to bring Allah's guidance and His Prophet's behavior (and) they don't want that to be involved in these issues. They want to maintain a monopoly on Islamic Centers with the finances that they have and with the connections that they have. Who's supporting them? Why are they still ruling? There should be a universal dislike for what they are doing and there should be a thinking Muslim mind that can take them on with confidence.
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 17 October 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)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive