Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Friday, November 28, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : SECTARIANISM FURTHERS THE STRATEGY OF KUFR

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (28 November 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.
Brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…
 
 
SECTARIANISM FURTHERS THE STRATEGY OF KUFR
We happen to be living at a time when civil wars and sectarian wars are consuming the entire part of that world which is the majority Muslim part of the world; from Morocco to Indonesia and from Southern Russia to Somalia the entire Muslim world is in a condition that perhaps it has never experienced before with the members within countries and the citizens between countries engaged in a war that may not only last generations but perhaps go into centuries. For the last several decades the majority Muslim world has been the most volatile region in the world whereas the global state of affairs in other parts of the world may experience degrees of stability and degrees of disintegration the Muslim part of the world is now going through a phase when it is experiencing permanent degradation and permanent disintegration. But for this type of degradation, disintegration and destabilization to continue for the better part of several decades it ought to be apparent to us just as it ought to be apparent to our enemies that this situation is pervasive because it exists by design. This situation exists because there is a power culture in the world that wants if to be this way and the dominant power culture in the world prefers a situation of instability and perpetual war in the Muslim world because it, itself, is threatened by the potential ideological challenge that would come from the world of Islam. The dominant power culture is not threatened by an ideological challenge that might come from Russia, they're not threatened by an ideological challenge that might come out of China, they're not threatened by an ideological challenge that may come from India because all of the intellectual classes of those countries are educated tight here in Washington and in Boston and in New York and perhaps in the satellite cities of this dominant power culture in London and in Berlin and in Paris and they take this education back to their own countries and they implement the same programs of exploitation and degradation that have been made the ideological foundation right here in the home of that degradation in Washington. So even though this ideological challenge that could potentially come from the world of Islam is not mature and it is not at a level of potency to challenge anyone on the world stage just the potential of that challenge is enough to destabilize a portion of the world that contains over one-third to one-forth of the worlds population. The challenge that causes them to fear is the strategic posture of Islam or perhaps to put it another way the strategic posture that Islam equips the oppressed with. In times past we talked about strategy. We talked about the fact that strategy is what connects leadership to an achievable vision on the ground. We talked about the fact that strategy is the set of key decisions that shapes all of your other decisions. So fundamental to the strategic posture of Islam is the rejection of the excessive and outrageous powers of evil government. Brothers and sisters- let us make the leap beyond what the pundits and experts say in the media. Let us be prescient and precocious enough to make the leap to characterize the dominant power culture in the world today as evil. Let us make the leap that the combination of these three- Wahabism, Imperialism and Zionism- is something that is evil. So fundamental to the Islamic strategic posture is to reject and to deny the power of the Taghut in the world- to deny their foundations, to deny their systems, to deny their education that leads to the degradation of five-sixths of humanity. Indeed Allah says
There is no coercion in matters of conviction for the path of maturity has become distinct from the path of error; and so whosoever denies or rejects the excessive power of evil governments and endorses the power and the authority of Allah then he has latched on to a support that is unfailing and which will never give way and Allah is the One Who is All-Seeing and All Hearing. Allah is the sponsor of those who are securely committed to Him; He is the One who takes them out of a position darkness into a position of knowledge and light where-as those who are committed to excessive and outrageous powers of evil government are the ones who take people from a position of knowledge and light into a position of ignorance and darkness… (Surah Al Baqarah verse 256-257)
So this is our problem. We have no confidence in Allah and there-by as Muslims we have no confidence in ourselves. In order to have confidence in ourselves we have to have confidence in Allah, we have to have confidence in His Prophet, we have to have confidence in His ayaat, we have to have confidence in the fact that this education is the education, we have to have confidence in the fact that our systems have to be based on the foundation of these ayaat, on the foundation of the example of His Prophet; and if we shift our education, our foundation (and) our knowledge (and) the way that we approach the solution to problems and if we cede that responsibility and that foundation to somebody else's systems, to somebody else's knowledge (and) to somebody else's wisdom then we are helping them achieve their objectives and we are saying to ourselves that our own objectives and our own vision are not important. Symptomatic of our failing confidence in the world that we live in today is Muslim on Muslim violence (or) Muslim killing Muslim. No reason on Earth can be given for a Muslim to rationalize or justify the killing of another Muslim! That's the meaning of the ayaat that was quoted at the very beginning.
And whosoever deliberately kills or murders another Muslim he has earned the hell-fire and he has also earned Allah's rejection and condemnation and besides that he has earned formidable suffering in the here after. (Surah An Nisa' verse 93)
But by saying that there is no justification for a Muslim to kill another Muslim we are not saying at the same time that there is no justification for war. As much as the Islamic paradigm looks to contain the kind of bloodletting that we are experiencing in the world today and as much as Islam tries to limit that kind of activity we have to understand that war is a permanent feature of society and life. We can try to wish it away as much as we want but because it is a permanent feature of human life we ought to understand that war falls within the domain of moral rectification. There is moral war and there is immoral war. There is war with rules and there is war without rules and in the war that we live in today there is only war without rules! There are conventions which define the rules of war but there is a power culture in the world that signs on to conventions for the purpose of disarming its enemy. Conventions on peace, conventions of human rights, the desire for peace in the public discourse- all of that is a strategy and a tactic for continued and perpetual war. If we are reading the Qur'an and understanding Allah's ayaat and we're looking at the world in front of us we ought to understand the fact that were it not for Islam (and) were it not for the rules and the guidance that Allah has dispensed with His Prophets and in the Qur'an then today we would not be talking about a moral war or an immoral war for we live in a world where war is only immoral, where war is fought to gain access to markets, to control resources, to enslave populations and to occupy territory. Muslims are required to fight but Muslims are only required to fight to restore the justice fi sabil Allah and this excludes the possibility of indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, of non-combatants, of innocents all of which is endemic to what we understand today to be collateral damage that is associated with wars on turf, wars of occupation, war of aggression and assassinations. All of these exists because war today is fought without rules. Allah says in these ayaat
O you who are committed to Allah: If you go forth on a military mission then be cognisant of the situation that you are in and if you are approached by someone who gives you the salutation of peace then do not say (to him) that you are not a committed Muslim so that you can access some of the benefits of the worldly life… (Surah An Nisa' verse 94)
So we have to ask ourselves in what situation was these ayaat revealed? At the time of Allah's Messenger, he commissioned a group of Muslims to go on a military mission and on their way to their destination these Muslims encountered a shepherd and this shepherd came up to these Muslims and said Assalaamualaykum. So the Muslims thought that this person was just saying Assalaamualaykum (there-by) pretending to be a Muslim. So they killed him. They went and they killed this person because their assessment was that he's just saying Assalaamualaykum to pretend, (i.e.) he's projecting the idea that he's a Muslim but he's not a Muslim do they killed him. It was on that occasion that this ayah was revealed.
 
We have to understand the psychology of soldiers. We have to understand the fact that what inundates the thinking of a soldier is self-preservation. Any soldier is constantly thinking that he is going to be killed by the enemy in a surprise attack, in a forceful attack, in a head-on face on face attack- they're going to be killed. It is because of this psychology that soldiers even if they consider themselves to be on the right path visit all manner of atrocities on their enemies. So Allah's guidance is telling the Muslims
… if you find yourself of a war footing then be cognisant of the situation that you are in… (Surah An Nisa' verse 94)
This whole mentality of "shoot first and ask questions later" is not permissible for a Muslim even if he is in theatre of war! So this leads us to an important consideration, (i.e.), those who are trained to kill- it is Allah's responsibility to give life and to take away life but in certain instances He has issued a license for people to fight and to kill. So shouldn't those who are trained to kill either in a defensive or in an offensive posture be receiving a moral education that at the very least holds all innocent human life to be sacrosanct? If you are trained to shoot a bullet or drop a bomb then you ought to be trained to distinguish between that person who is an innocent and that person who is a soldier and if you cannot make that distinction then you ought not to have the right to pull the trigger. It's the moral education that gives you the understanding of the difference between an innocent (and) a civilian on one hand and a combatant on the other hand because in the world that we live in today there is no such thing as innocence, especially if your name is Ahmad or Muhammad! Bothers and sisters- we're not speaking figuratively of metaphorically- in the war on terror the entire world is a battlefield. This is not a joke. This comes straight to you from the White House and the State Department. In the war on terror they define the entire world as a battlefield and in the Muslim world in particular any man between the age of 16 and 60 years of age is considered to be a combatant. So if you're a male in the Muslim world, in a Muslim city in your house, in your business because that part of the world is considered to be a battlefield and you happen to be between the age of 16 and 60 years of age you are considered to be a soldier! When they say this and they define soldiers and combatants in this way (then) there is no distinction between a civilian and a combatant (and) that means that the entire Muslim world is a strike zone for a drone. It doesn't matter whether you're buying or selling, it doesn't matter whether you're going to a wedding, it doesn't matter whether you're a participant in a funeral procession, it doesn't matter whether you're going to a health clinic, it doesn't matter whether you're a student in a school- all of that doesn't matter, you are considered to be an enemy, you are considered to be a target and you are considered to be a soldier! If you are trained to kill and you are not given a moral education then you are no different from a missile or a bomb! To give you a characterization as a human being is erroneous. The most civilized country in the world and in history trains their soldiers to view the enemy as something sub-human, as someone alien, as someone who kills and murders because he likes it, as someone (for) who it is impossible for him to have any grievances. They portray the enemy as the devil himself; that to kill this enemy is a good thing, to rid the world of these types of people is a good thing. Not only do they educate their people to view the enemy and the other in this way, their film industry comes and indoctrinates those who may not be violent or who may not have violent tendencies into an atmosphere of fear to suggest that a terrorist strike is always around the corner and because you live in a perpetual state of fear that you ought to get used to a perpetual state of war in the world. To complement all of that you can go to your local video store and buy the latest war games where in the privacy of your own home and the comfort of your own home drinking a coke or a beer or watching your favorite football game you can get used to killing the enemy. What does the enemy look like? You've played these games. You've seen these games on television. What does the enemy look like? Does he have a beard? Does he say Allahu Akbar? There are those Muslims who are out killing other Muslims. Its one thing for the enemy's of Muslims to come and kill them (but) it's quite another for Muslims to declare other Muslims as enemies and then go out and kill them! These people are reading the same ayaat that were quoted earlier. They read these ayaat everyday, every week, every month, every year.     
Anyone who kills another Muslim having no better reason to kill or to murder has earned for himself hell-fire and he Allah's condemnation and Allah's rejection… (Surah An Nisa' verse 93)
They're reading these ayaat. This ought to deter us from killing our brothers but we live in quite a different world than the world of the past. For in order to kill our brothers we have to first declare them to be Kafirs and thereby we say to ourselves "well if he's a Kafir it's OK to kill him." So why don't we ask those people who stand up on the mimbar here or elsewhere "where is it in the Qur'an that allows a Muslim to kill a Kafir just because he's a Kafir? Show us one ayah or one hadith that allows a Muslim soldier to go out and kill a Kafir just because he's a Kafir."
 
At the time of Allah's Messenger there's a delegation of people who came to the Prophet. These Christians came from Najran. The Christian delegation from Najran. How does Allah himself characterize this delegation from Najran? OK- so Allah, Himself, says these Christian leaders are guilty of Kufr in this 73rd ayah in Surah Al Maa'idah. 
As for those who characterise Allah as one of three- they are guilty of Kufr… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 73)
So the Prophet receives this delegation from Najran but did he receive them by killing them? He received them in his Masjid. He acquainted them with the Islamic message. Yes- in the time of the Prophet they had the right to be Kafirs if they wanted to be. It didn't bother the Prophet. They had made a decision for themselves that this is what they wanted to be (and) this is what they wanted to believe.
They have their deen we have ours. (Surah Al Kafirun verse 6)
But its when you transfer kufr into tyranny and oppression and when you transfer kufr into dhulm that Muslims are counseled to take up arms. No Muslim is allowed to go out and kill a Kafir- whether he's a Muslim or a non-Muslim; but when kufr takes this kufr into the realm of dhulm that Muslims are required to take up arms to restore the balance of justice. Without a moral program and a moral acculturation that comes from the Qur'an how do you decide what's dhulm and what's kufr? How do you decide? The sad fact of the matter is that today, we Muslims, are not in control of deciding who's a Muslim and who's a Kafir! Takfir for most Muslims is very easy. It our not to be that easy but the sad fact of the matter is that we're not in control of who's a Muslim and who's a Kafir. We've ceded that responsibility to our enemies. They're the ones who decide who's a Muslim and who's a Kafir. They've combed through our history books, they've combed through all our books of fiqh and hadith and explanations of the Qur'an and they know what buttons to push and when to push them. They're the ones who are disseminating the information now of who's a Kafir and who's a Muslim and because we are not educated of our own history (and) our own deen we accept the definitions of our enemies. We accept the labels that they give to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Our enemies are content with us self-destructing, with us calling each other Kafirs and killing each other because then we solve the ideological problem for them. They view Islam as the main ideological threat to them in the world. The president of this country came out and said "the Islamic Republic in Iran is the greatest security threat to the United States." Ok- so they recognize who their enemy is. They recognize that Islam is an ideological threat and they're behaving in a way that they recognize Islam is an ideological threat. But the question is why are we, Muslims, helping them accomplish their ideological objectives? Because when we go out and declare each other as Kafirs and then take that to the extent of killing each other aren't we helping them achieving their strategic objectives of eliminating this deen as a social, a political and a military impediment to the aggressive domination of Capitalism, of Imperialism and militarism? If we do not develop the ideological muscle to challenge the abuse of power and the space where that power is being abused we will never be united and we will never be free.
 
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
With this backdrop we're going to try to be very brief with regard to certain current events; but because we cite one particular geographic area of the world doesn't mean that we're forgetting other parts of the world because if you happen to be a Muslim- and more particularly if you happen to be a Muslim who was born in another part of the Muslim world meaning that you're not born here- then you're affected by the tragedy that is taking place all over the Muslim world. In particular we'd like to talk briefly about the situation in Al Iraq. The forces of Imperialism, Wahabism and Zionism suffered a defeat in Syria. While that defeat is not complete and total, nonetheless they threw everything they had at Syria and they didn't succeed. The major objective was to try to break the axis of resistance from Islamic Iran to Lebanon. They figured that the weak link in this axis was the government and the country of Syria so they tried for three years to do everything they could to remove the government of Syria and to replace it with a proxy government that was endorsed by Washington, Riyadh and Tel Aviv. But after losing in Syria did we really expect this enemy to give up? They don't give up, they don't take a break. They are constantly coming at you! So by losing in Syria they decided to regroup n Iraq and that is what we see happening now. This force called ISIS, The Islamic State in Iraq and Ash Shaam, (that's what ISIS stands for), saw it's beginnings in 2007 at the end of the George W Bush administration when the GCC countries, (Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and a few others), saw that the axis of resistance is gaining power. In 2006 one of their major players in the state of Israel basically lost a war in trying to annihilate Hizbullah. They thought that they had to bring in other players to try to combat this axis of resistance so they began to construct a north/south axis from Turkey to Saudi Arabia. So because they lost in Syria they're now re-grouping with this force in Iraq. You may remember a couple of years ago that on this forum right here we mentioned that the government of Saudi Arabia is emptying it's prisons of rapists and murderers and it is commuting their sentences altogether- most of them having life sentences and it is sending these people to fight their sectarian wars against other Muslims. So this group, ISIS, consists of rapists and murderers from the Muslim world and others and mercenaries from the non-Muslim world. They are trained by Special Forces units from Washington, from Tel Aviv and from Ankara. They went into Al Iraq and they kidnapped 80 Turkish council members! Now you tell us, brothers and sisters, if you are trained in Turkey, if you are coached in Turkey (and) if you are given heavy military weapons in Turkey why are you taking Turkish hostages?! This seems like an enigma- either you're very stupid or you're very smart. So we err on the side of very smart. We don't want to give them any quarters that we don't understand what they're doing. They took these Turkish hostages because they wanted to give the Turkish Government an excuse to invade the North of Syria and the North of Al Iraq. It's the same with this government here in Washington. They are telling their forces "to be as brutal and as macabre as they can possibly be" to justify a re-entry inside of Al Iraq. They've already sent 300 so-called military advisors to that country. Again, don't be fooled. This is just the beginning of a troop re-build up inside that country. The goal here, brothers and sisters, is to atomize Iraq and Syria to begin with and then to use this as a platform to atomize the rest of the Muslim world. We are already 56 or 57 odd countries; they want to change that situation and divide it into perhaps 150 different countries; but these will no longer be countries in the way you understand a country or state. What they want to do is create so called open territories. Open territories are basically corporate fiefdoms. These are territories that are basically owned by corporations. The people who live in these territories live as slaves. There is no law except the law that allows the corporation to reap as large a profit as it can. So while we were against the nation state model to begin with, those who are deconstructing the nation state model are the ones who came up with it to begin with. Why? Because it serves their interests! They'll build something and they'll destroy something if it serves their interests. They're not ideologically tied to anything. They don't care where your borders are in Iran or in Pakistan or in Indonesia or anything like that. They constructed those borders and they can take them down when they want to but what ought to concern us is why are we married to these borders. Why do we identify ourselves as Pakistanis or Egyptians or Turks or whatever?
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Afeef Khan on the occasion of Jum'ah on 20 June 2014 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C.

__._,_.___
Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

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

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : DELICATE ISSUES ABOUT UTHMAN PART 3

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (21 November 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…
 
 
DELICATE ISSUES ABOUT UTHMAN PART 3
We are going to continue our journey to have the facts stand on their own merits and by doing so to bring to light those who right now are causing our internal instabilities, internal discomfitures and internal wars. We've mentioned previously and we are saying this to obey Allah when He says to us
O You who are divinely and securely committed: be conscious of Allah's power presence and when you speak you speak forthwith and accurately. (Surah Al Ahzaab verse 70)
We've said that in this early history that is used nowadays by prejudiced individuals and biased decision makers to explain to their followers "why it is permissible to kill the other Muslim." They go back to this history right now that we are trying to deconstruct or reconstruct. We said that there were three individuals in that early history that took issue with Uthman (radi Allahu anhu)'s mistakes or with the mistakes that were done during Uthman's reign and these three are prominent individuals, (viz.), Talha, Az Zubayr and A'ishah (radi Allahu anhum). They took issue with Uthman in a very vociferous and a very public way but they were apart- this is a part of history that either people don't want to mention or they know it or they're afraid to mention it because it's going to cause them to answer some questions in your mind. These individuals had their own followers and they were different from those who were following Muawiyah. You can't lump them all together. It is very simplistic and it is very deadly to do so. Besides, it's not factual. These three individuals never, (at least to the best of our days and years in reading over this time period), accused Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) of having anything to do with the assassination of Uthman. Never! Unlike those who were following Muawiyah. They were pointing fingers of accusation at Ali and telling him you had a hand in the assassination of Uthman either directly or indirectly but these did not do that. They knew better. On the other hand these three individuals and their followers were very serious about bringing to justice those who were responsible for the assassination of Uthman; unlike the followers of Muawiyah. They were not serious about this. They were using this as a political instrument to serve the purposes that they had in mind, i.e. climbing the ladder of power and becoming the highest ranking officials in the Islamic state. When Uthman was assassinated these individuals realized that those who were in the camp of Muawiyah had taken advantage of them. This is something also that your historians, your speakers, your lecturers, your khutaba', your preachers, etc. don't mention and because this area is not in our thinking mind we have people who plan for civil wars visiting this particular area and then trying to make cannon fodder out of it so that we kill each other. Then, when Uthman was assassinated they felt that they had to somehow address this issue of those who were trying to take revenge for Uthman's blood using them as an excuse and using them for a justification for the assassination of Uthman. You see how these issues get inter-tangled? And they have to be diffused. Obviously these prominent individuals are much higher in rank and in status and honor and respect than Muawiyah and his followers. Talha and Az Zubayr according to some hadiths are from those ten who were given the glad news of accessing paradise. They were from the Muhajirin. They attended the battles of the Prophet, etc. A'ishah was from the Muhajiraat. She was one of the most beloved from the Prophet's wives. Compare that to Muawiyah and those who were with him. It was the Tulaqa' (i.e.) those who were freed or amnestied when Makkah was liberated. Along with them there was the Qahtaniyah, (i.e.) one of the two major Arabian tribes and its offshoots in the Arabian Peninsular and there were also the A'rab. Remember the word A'rab in the Qur'an?
These nomadic Arabians are more intense in their kufr and their nifaq than the others… (Surah At Tawbah verse 97)
These were the types who were amassed around Muawiyah. After the dust settles, (as it were), now Uthman was assassinated. People began to come to their minds and their senses now. It's all over now. Where do we go from here? What is to be done? In this atmosphere A'ishah and Talha and Az Zubayr expressed their regrets having figured out that they were used by these Tulaqa'. We ask some of these sectarians who are around why don't they invite themselves into the details of this history and come to realize that these issues are delicate issues, especially if they want to bring the details of that history into today's world? You see- in today's world we have Islamic movements, we have Islamic state (and) we have Islamic self determination and we have some of these elements in today's world. Who is going to stand today and say "I'm going to take the commercial class, (i.e.) the people who have wealth and influence to task on the basis of Qur'anic and Prophetic principles?" Who's going to say today "No! We can't do without them? If the wealthy class is going to support us why should we exclude?" The same things you hear today if you are living in circles that think (and) people who are aware of the issues then you can hearken back to those early years and look at the world through the lenses of today and say "wait a minute, the world at that time was as complex in human relations as it is in today's world."
 
Then we had the unfortunate development of what is called in history Ma'rakat Al Jamal that took place in the vicinity of Al Basrah. The result of that battle was the loss of those who were against Ali. That loss had a drawback in the sense that the people (or) the general population who were living in the Basrah area carried within them- because the battle took place within their geography- the resentment of them having lost that battle. Just like Ali had most of his supporters in the Kufa area, most of the supporters of Talha, Az Zubayr and A'ishah, Umm Al Mu'minin had their supporters in the Basrah area and this was not going to die as a result of the consequences of the battle of Al Jamal. This was going to live in the centuries to come. That's why if you are familiar with some of the hadith literature, some of the fiqhi personalities and all of this you will find many of them from Al Basrah carry a type of historical grudge against their opponents to the degree that… In the Sunni world this is not something that is common knowledge but these leftovers who resented the results of Ma'rakat Al Jamal in the area of Al Basrah killed An Nasa'i one of the six major narrators of the hadith because of their impression that he had sentiments towards Ali in some of the hadiths that he quoted from the Prophet.
 
We want you to be familiar with some of the names who are within the camp of Muawiyah, (i.e.) those who were anti-(the legitimate ruler) because Ali was the legitimate ruler and here they were in a state of opposition to legitimate rule. Of course, all of us know it was Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and then there was another Muawiyah called Muawiyah ibn Abi Hudaij and then there was Abd Ar Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Al Walid and then there was Bisr or Busr, (its pronounced both ways in these books) ibn Abi Arta'a, Abu Al A'war As Salami. Then some of the governors of Muawiyah like Ziyad ibn Abi and Mughirah ibn Abi Shu'bah and Marwan ibn Abi Hakam- all of them were hard core people of asabiyah who's sole concern was to take over power. Then there was the second generation. Obviously here you have Yazid ibn Muawiyah, Abd Al Malik ibn Marwan, Khalid Al Qasri, Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad and others. All the kings of Bani Umayah with the exception of Umar ibn Abd Al Aziz (radi Allahu anhu) who forbid the vilification of Ali from all the Manabir in the Muslim world. Remember, up until this time it was official policy during jum'ah in the khutbahs just like this that the khutbah would end (with) instructions from the government that those who are ascending the Mimbar of Friday and expressing the khutbah end their khutbah with the vilification of Ali, Al Hassan and Al Hussein at the bare minimum. Umar ibn Abd Al Aziz put an end to that. The way khutbahs end today- see how much (of) the force of tradition comes to us from early history, you go to these Masajid (and) we could comfortably say 90 per cent of them and listen to the Imam ending the khutbah. He will end it with the ayah in the Qur'an that says
Verily, Allah orders justice and that you be patient and dutiful totally for His sake and that you be forthcoming to kin and He forbids evil deeds and the things which are prohibited and aggression and oppression. Allah admonishes you so that you may take heed. (Surah An Nahl verse 90)
That ayah on instruction from Umar ibn Abd Al Aziz replaced the vilification of Ali and Imams Al Hassan and Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhum) and it still works up until today. This wasn't the way the Prophet of Allah ended the khutbahs. It was the way the government at that time told the Imams at that time who were leading the prayers and giving the khutbahs to end it that way. See the force of tradition?! We don't have the khutbahs of the Prophet. This is one area where we have t face up to ourselves and ask "why not? What happened?" In all of these years (there were) hundreds of khutbahs that he gave on Fridays and the Eids and no one wrote any of them?! We men there is a trace of it- you'll find a small khutbah that can be said in two or three minutes scattered here and there in some of the books but back to the original text. Then there were third and forth generation individuals. Some of them you might want to be familiar with the names just in case in the future you may hear the name or you read the name: Azhar ibn Ubaydillah Ar Razi, Uraiz ibn Uthman Ar Rahbi. This one, (i.e.), Ar Rahbi used to curse Ali 140 times every day! Of course, we are not saying this, obviously, to fuel sectarianism. The only reason we're saying this is because it is something that we encounter in our history books that is used by sectarians to fuel wars to kill ourselves. OK- we don't dismiss the fact that a person could do something like that but if you say a person did something like that and he happens to follow a certain madh'hab then all of that madh'hab is condemned?! You can't do that. Other are Assad ibn Wada'a, Thawr ibn Yazid Al Himsi, Sulayman Al Bahrani, Umar ibn Qays Al Kindi, Muhammad ibn Ziyad Al Ilhani. Then there were others who came after that and all of this was beginning to die away. We're speaking here about individuals and these individuals now, obviously, are part of history and they're gone but their animosity (and) their hatred- some of them actually harbored hatred towards the legitimacy of the Khilafah or the Imamate of Ali- was beginning to fade away and then comes along ibn Taymiyah. Ibn Taymiyah gave this momentum again. He wrote a book, Minhaj As Sunnah, and in it he was impolite, (we're trying to be very careful with our words), and in some instances he was intrusive into the honorifics of the Prophet's family. If you look at this history without any prejudice- whichever background you come from- you find that most of this hostility towards Ali and his legitimate rule being maintained by two classes of people- the ruling class and the moneyed class. These were the ones who kept this anti-Ali position going. Much of this influence now, in today's world, has been more or less confined to parts of the Arabian Peninsular and the Arabian or Persian Gulf- that's the area where you will actually find the atmospherics of those times surviving today. We don't know how much contact you have with people who come from a particular background who come from certain parts of the Arabian Peninsular and the Persian Gulf (but) some of them feel a sensitivity (and) some type of uneasiness if someone without the theatrics to it, because some of this has theatrics to it, and (without) the emotionalism very calmly and rationally expresses an attachment to Ali or to Al Hassan or to Al Hussein. You can just sense in these people's non-verbal language, (i.e.) in their gestures and their body language there is something wrong with these individuals (and) we're just speaking rationally. (There's) no emotionalism here, just (speaking) rationally about these affairs.
 
This type of distance from Ali and Al Hassan and Al Hussein is not a simple matter because in these positions that we just outlined there are extremists and here's where the danger is. The danger comes from these extremists. You can be an extremist against Ali and you can be an extremist for Ali. You can be an extremist for A'ishah, Talha and Az Zubayr and you can be an extremist against them. These extremists are the ones who keep these divisions among the Muslims alive. If it wasn't for these extremists on all these sides, Muslims have within themselves the propensity to come together. There's a natural God-given gravity among the Muslims. Don't let anyone fool you! This comes with our very nature but if we begin to listen to our own extremists then we create these gaps (and) these cleavages among ourselves and we do it to ourselves. One of the reasons we have these active wars now, here in our time is because we have always listened to the presentation of the extremists. They are the ones who win the day. So when you have these Masajid that are run just like the one over here and there's, (we don't know), probably millions of them. No one has even counted them. How many of these Masajid are being paid for and being subject the orientation and the diktat of the people who have power and have money just like was the case back then we have it today. But we don't even have the slightest idea of this simple fact that we just mentioned, (i.e.) how many of these Masajid exist in the world. An educated guess would be at least a couple of million. That's an educated guess. We could be far off the mark but a simple task like that, (i.e.), just to count how many of these Masajid and Islamic Centers that are concerned with dividing the Muslims exist?! We don't have that simple piece of information in our hand. (Do) you see how far we have given the enemy the opportunity to wreak havoc among us? It is time that we return to our senses.
 
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
Now we transition from our historical selves to our current selves and the headlines now all over the place whether its in the Muslim press of in the non-Muslim press is concerning this phenomenon we have that is only about two or three years old and its on everyone's mind. Just recently, in the past couple of day's, Al Baghdadi, (that's what he's called. That's not his real name but they call him that in the media), came out with a speech in which he instructed his followers. (Of course, we're paraphrasing the whole thing), he said "this progress that he's making is going to extend to everywhere and he mentioned Egypt and Libya and the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa and then he mentioned Rome among other places." Then he says, (presumably speaking to his followers and those who are similar or like his followers), "they should concentrate on two fronts: one of those front is the Arabian Peninsula and what he meant by that is the Saudi government and the other front he called Ar Rafidah by which he meant the Shi'is." In his own words he said "whoever belongs to these two entities should be killed wherever and whenever they are encountered." Like that! A free license to kill. Compare this killing machine with Allah's instructions
And you engage in warfare those who have engaged you in warfare and you don't launch into aggression (or) you don't initiate aggression because Allah's not in favour of such an act. (Surah Al Baqarah verse 190)
That's what Allah says. They're on the opposite side of this! Whether you're aggressive or you're not aggressive they kill you just because in their vocabulary and their mind you're called a Kafir! They haven't even read their master's book, i.e. ibn Taymiyah. In his book he says kufr is not enough to legalize killing a person. Just because a person is a Kafir you can't kill him! That's what their master says- but they don't even read the books of their master. They go out there and here they are, they encounter someone who disagrees with them and they take him to the killing field (or) execution block or whatever it is. This is a hadith of Allah's Prophet- we're going to quote the hadith and give you the general meaning of it and then you take it and compare the meanings of this hadith with what these killers are doing. When Allah's Messenger used to dispatch a military contingent he used to say to it embark in the name of Allah. Do not kill an elderly person and do not kill a small child and not a woman and be disciplined, be worthy of the other, be considerate and do what is right and appropriate. . Compare that with what is happening now with these people. They take prisoners- they call them prisoners of war- and then they kill them. Not only do they kill them in a most savage them then they mutilate their bodies. They go to civilian areas- it could be a bus stop, a train station, a public square somewhere- and they have explosives with them and then they ignite these explosives and then they kill 20, 30, 150 innocent people all around. Then, they omit from their syllabi in school the sciences. They take away chemistry and physics and all of this. Wait a minute- Islam is anti-knowledge and anti-science?! This is what they are doing. They take researchers and scientists and just because they're researchers and scientists and they've written something these people disagree with then they kill them. Then they also demean women. On certain occasions in Syria they take a young lady and they say "you are now guilty. We have evidence that you are guilty of adultery and so we are going to stone you to death." OK- so if you have evidence of someone being guilty of adultery and she's a female where's the male?! How do you have evidence? The ayah in the Qur'an says there should be four witnesses to the act.
And those who accuse women of adultery and don't produce four witnesses … (Surah An Nur verse 4)
That's the evidence. If there are four witnesses seeing the act of adultery, how come they saw the woman and didn't see the man?! In which mind does this make sense? Obviously in their mind this makes sense?! In one of these scenarios they bring the father of the young lady that's going to be stoned and they tell her "to beg forgiveness from her own father" and the father says "I'm not going to forgive you." This is how much they have entered into the fabric of society when the father has to please them. The father now is watching (and) looking. There's about two meters or two yards between him and his daughter and he's saying "I will not forgive you." How is this? What type of Islam is this when a father no longer (can forgive his own daughter)?! Let's say she did commit adultery (and) let's say the father is 100 per cent sure that his own daughter committed adultery, (let's assume; we're assuming now, there's no evidence of this but we are giving them the benefit of the doubt), the father should say "may Allah forgive you. I will forgive you as a first step to Allah forgiving you." That is the Islamic moral fabric; not say "I will not forgive you" as if he's saying to her "you go to hell!" What is this?! Where did all of this come from?! We don't speak about morality here. Has anyone heard us speak about morality in these khutbahs? This is taken for granted, (i.e.), we are moral by nature! We don't have to speak about morality. We don't lack morality but the example that these people are projecting to the rest of the world is a shame. It is a burden! It is a blot on who we are! This is what happens- when you look at the larger picture, (you see), the Muslims have been denied throughout all of these centuries; maybe we can trace it back all the way to Muawiyah. They've been denied their presence in running there own affairs- this is the simplest way we can put it and look right now how the reaction is. This is the payback of that denial, (i.e.) you create extremists out of it and then the world wide mass media is sponsoring the extremists of the extremists, This is what we are seeing today. We ask Allah for His understanding and obviously He knows more details than anyone can speak about. He knows the hands that are behind all of this. He knows the dupes and the patsies that are used for all of this. He knows the financiers; He knows those who are supporting them by condemning them. Yes- you can support people by bad mouthing them to give them popularity. He knows all these details and much more and we refer this whole affair through our conviction and sacrifices all to Him.   
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 14 November 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:

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : DELICATE ISSUES ABOUT UTHMAN PART 2

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (14 November 2014)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_street_mimbar/
PLEASE e-mail Suggestions & Criticisms to khutbahs@yahoo.com
It is in such a manner that We make plain Our signs so that the course of the Criminals may become clear.
Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem.
Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), his Noble Companions and Family.
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
 
 
DELICATE ISSUES ABOUT UTHMAN PART 2
We know (that) some individuals will ask "why are we continuing the types of khutbahs that concentrate on our early Islamic history?" The answer to that is this is out of our hands. There are projects and plans to have Muslims fight until the Muslims finish their own selves off. This is something that is very obvious to anyone who is tuned in to this world's reality. The victims are in the hundreds of thousands if not in the tens of millions- depending on how you define the word victims and all of them are Muslims. Some of the rationalize (and) explain the killing of the other Muslim by going back to the precise history that we are trying to clarify in these khutbahs. Within these circumstances and the conditions there-in we are forced as our duty on this day of blessings and guidance to seek Allah's light and the Prophet's example to clarify this whole subject so that trouble-makers and warmongers do not instigate these issues among Muslims, (i.e.), whenever these issues are fed to the public by those who are in control of the mass media we will stand immune to their disease and their infliction. We reiterate- and it's Allah's command and Allah's order
And hold on, all of you, to Allah's fortified extension to you and be not divided… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
When Allah orders us to do something it is because there is something in us that doesn't want to do it or else there wouldn't be an order. It would have come naturally. There's something in either an individual or a society that doesn't want to be together. They want to breakaway, they want to divide (and) they want to isolate. The togetherness that Allah is speaking about is not in them; therefore it is necessary for Allah to bring us together. One of the issues that tends to have Muslims alienated from each other, (and we're going to carry on from where we left off in the previous khutbah), is this difference between Al Khalifah Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) with the mistakes that we are going to enumerate, (and we've done
so previously), and Imam Ali (alayhi as salaam wa radi Allahu anhu). There were differences between these two individuals. With all of these differences they never struck each other, they never thought about fighting each other, much less doing the other bloody and blood thirsty and blood letting issues that today we find those who say "we are champions of Uthman" doing and the others who say "we are champions of Ali" doing. None of that! Something is wrong and we will only discover what is wrong when we have the facts surface- that's what we're trying to do. So when Uthman began to appoint his relatives to positions of power, decision making (and) officialdom public opinion began to resent that. Now some people- not everyone, some Muslims- have this rosy idea that all the people in that generation are somehow angelic. No! That's not the case. The Qur'an (and) Allah's words teach us that in that generation there were Munafiqun, there were lesser than desirable Muslims, there were traitors and the rest- this is part of society. So when public opinion in its mixed constitution realized that something is terribly wrong in the highest office of the land when cousins and relatives are beginning to take over virtually the government. Of course, when we speak we try to put the events of history in the vocabulary of our time and sometimes this may not be very accurate but it is done to try to communicate. We don't want to return to the language of tribes and clans and then forget about power centers and rulers and decision makers. We don't want that to happen. So many of the populace (or) many of the Muslim public came to Ali and complained to him, (i.e.) this is not right. Something has to be done about this. Of course, this was said by many individuals in many ways and Ali was just like anyone else as far as identifying things going wrong. So he used to address himself to Uthman as an adviser (or) a person who's giving him advice. There was no taking out a sword or some type of weapon and challenging and I'm going to this and that- none if this! Then Ali found himself in a position between two sides that are contrary to each other. While this was developing Talha, Az Zubayr and Umm Al Mu'minin A'ishah (radi Allahu anhum) were more vocal in their opposition to Uthman than Ali. This wouldn't appear to be the case through our traditions and through our brainwashing that has been occurring through hundreds of years- but that's a fact! Anyone who's willing to dig out the facts will find that this was not an issue of polarizations per se as traditions present it today between Ali and Al Khalifah Uthman. It wasn't. There were serious differences absent antagonisms and hostilities. Then, when you read deep down inside you find out (that) wait a minute, during critical time period Umm Al Mu'minin A'ishah, Talha and Az Zubayr from the cream of the crop of the Sahaba were more vocally and publically critical of Uthman than Ali. It would seem- and Allah knows best but from going critically through the books of history, the chronicles and the narratives there-in you will find that the popular sentiment (and) the way people were beginning to feel (i.e.) if you were to probe their political mind they felt more inclined at this critical moment in their lives (and) in the development of their society to Ali assuming more responsibilities within this context to such a degree (that) if in that time- we're speaking about a specific time period, (i.e.) the last years of Uthman, particularly the last year in his life- if Uthman were to resign or was to step down or was to abdicate his responsibilities the popular sentiment was with Ali. It wasn't with Talha, it wasn't with Az Zubayr, it wasn't with Muawiyah (and) it wasn't with these other figures that are around. Some of the Sahaba and some of the notables in society meaning from the Muhajirin and Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) actually approached Uthman himself and said just give up this position- that's all we're asking you because you are, (we're trying to use a lesser loaded word but they meant is), incompetent. So we see that it is in the interest of the Muslims (and) the Ummah that someone else take your place because right now the division that is widening week after week and month after month. There has to be a trust between the citizenry and the leader but it reached a point where that trust now no longer exists. So in the last year or so of Uthman's reign, (to try and put it in some time capsule), we had for the first time now two serious (and) significant trends. One of them you may refer to as an Uthmani trend and the other one you may refer to as an Alawi trend. These are like social blocs in the Ummah. Its not that Uthman himself organize this current and it's not like Ali himself organized this current. They came into being because of the factors that were involved and it seemed like the people who were favoring Ali realized that there's something like an anti-gravity here, (i.e.) the most meritorious, the most competent (and) the most qualified to lead- this is in all societies, not only in the society of the Arabian Peninsula at that time (but) in your society, whatever society you come from it exists- and that is some people are interested in making money, other people are interested in power belonging to their own types- clannish types, national types, racial types, ethnic types, etc. In the Uthmani trend many individuals who supported Uthman supported that Ali was fair to Uthman. Some of them even went as far as to say he had a hand in the assassination of Uthman. They were afraid that if Ali was to assume the highest office in the land he is not going to play politics with people who have accumulated wealth and not in a legal way, he's going to deal with people who are abusing power and he's not going to show any amnesty towards them. So they began a campaign against Ali and Ali is caught between these currents. He can't deliver to those who say they support him because he's not in a position to deliver and on the other hand he cannot put an end to his distracters campaign and propaganda. Among the different things they said Ali abandoned Uthman. That is not true.
 
When you take just a general look at these two currents you will find that Ali had on his side the lower classes of society. We don't say this to try to develop a political theory. We're saying this just to try to state a fact in history- a fact that we are at a distance of over 14 centuries from. The supporters of Ali came from the lower classes, from the disenfranchised, from al mawaali, from the minority (so to speak, in today's language), whereas the supporters of Uthman same from the upper classes, these were from the merchants, the commercial class in society, the entrepreneurs, the bazaaris, the traders (i.e.) the money class. Once again, we're not saying this to try to develop a political theory. We're saying this observing the facts and trying to state them as they are. Most of the supporters of Ali were in the Arabian Peninsula, in Iraq and in Egypt. Most of the supporters of Uthman were in Bilad Ash Shaam, geographical Syria. There was tension here. We don't want anyone to misunderstand us. By us covering this area of tension we are not trying to feed into anyone's bias. We are trying to diffuse that bias and that tension. Both Uthman and Ali were aware of these currents, this polarization and this potential conflict. Both of them were aware of that and both of them were not satisfied with the increasing number of people joining both of these sides. They felt this is going to become a disaster. We want to pose a question here because these are only seeds. You can go to the books of reference yourself and scan this history with your open heart and mind relying on the guidance that come from Allah and His Prophet in doing so. When you see that Talha, Az Zubayr and A'isha were more vocal and more tense and more charged in their opposition to Uthman the question we ask is: why does that fact not appear now in the Muslim memory and the Muslim public mind? What happened? Something happened that this fact is not known by the average Muslim. We also realize that Talha, A'isha and Az Zubayr wanted this governmental, political (and) administrative mistake to be fixed. They were not their instigating trouble (and) creating problems. No. They were there within their own perception of things trying to correct mistakes but the circle around Uthman (i.e.) his own relatives, particularly Marwan ibn Al Hakam, didn't want that to happen.  They didn't want A'isha, Talha and Az Zubayr on one hand to fix this problem and they didn't want Ali, Ammaar, Bilal (and) Abu Dharr on the other hand to fix this problem because they themselves didn't see a problem. They were in power. Everything was going their way so there was no problem. What is there to fix?! The opposition-(i.e.) those who disagreed with Bani Umayah and the Tulaqa' becoming the virtual rulers- sensed that now the Ummah has become the possession of a family- that's how some of them felt. They felt like Uthman was ineffectual (and) he had no say in what was going on and now the Tulaqa' and their children are the highest ranking people in the Islamic State. At Tulaqa' and their supporters out maneuvered Al Muhajirin and Al Ansar and within a period of 20 years after the Prophet passed away they took over. This was their perception. Now, at this point, people began to dig up some history. We want you to be aware if what was said. At times of conflict when the differences are not bridgeable people begin to bring up issues so the opposition to Uthman began to say the following to try to discredit him, (and you can go and verify this in the history books), Uthman was not one of the Badris. He did not attend the Battle of Badr. He was absent during bay'ah Ar Ridwan. He fled on the day of Uhud. Many of the warriors around the Prophet ran away on the day of Uhud because they saw that they were being routed and Uthman was one of them and he gave amnesty to those who shouldn't have been amnestied. He burned the Masahif.  This needs just a little explanation. During the time of Uthman there was fear that because of the military nature and what was going on many Muslims were giving their lives for Allah. So those who had committed the Qur'an to heart were dying. So the fear was that if they begin to die and not all of the Qur'an is compiled then we're going to lose the Qur'an. So what Uthman did- not Uthman personally; it was a policy that he initiated but it was done by others including many of the Sahaba- they compiled the Qur'an and after this uniform Qur'an was put together the rest of the versions that were around, (i.e.), whether this ayah was before that or whether this surah was after that or these types of things that were going on (so) to put an end to the divisions that were going on he just (burned it). The way the Fuqaha' (said)- and this is an agreed upon fiqhi matter- if there is an ayah or a page of a surah or the whole Qur'an that is to be disposed of, the honorary way of going it is you burn it. You can't throw it in the trash.  The only way of doing it is you burn it. What was meant by burning these bits and pieces of whatever was around that may have caused disunity among Muslims was not to demean the Qur'an as a policy but when it was said by his opposition it was meant to say that somehow he had a hand in doing away with some of the Qur'an. This is what happens. Oppositions wherever they are have a tendency of exaggerating issues and this is one of those exaggerations. They all agreed, (i.e.) the opposition agreed that Uthman is no longer suitable as the ruler and he has to be moved from office. Either he himself declines the office or some power has to relieve him of those responsibilities because the opposition saw that these Tulaqa' were hiding behind Uthman's senility, his generosity, his goodness towards those who are his relatives, etc. All of this came to a head when Marwan ibn Al Hakam, Uthman's secretary, wrote a letter to the governor of Egypt. In that letter he told the governor of Egypt to kill figures of the opposition. Among them was Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and Abd Ar Rahman ibn Udais Al Balawi (radi Allahu anhuma) from the Sahaba and others. This is reminiscent and it reminds us of what happens today in our time. There are opposition figures and then orders go out "assassinate them. Get rid of them." It was done in a very ugly way. So when these opposition numbers found out that Marwan ibn Al Hakam wrote that letter they asked Uthman hand over Marwan ibn Al Hakam. Marwan ibn Al Hakam, (we spoke about him), was the son of a person who was exiled by the Prophet from Al Madinah to At Ta'if (or) from Makkah to At Ta'if. Uthman was afraid that if he hands this Marwan ibn Al Hakam over the opposition are going to kill him because he had deemed Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and the rest who were opposing these mistakes in Al Madinah- these are Islamic terminology words- mufsidina fi al ard and the punishment for mufsidina fi al ard is capital punishment. Of course, these are not mufsidina fi al ard. That is an erroneous judgment by Marwan ibn Al Hakam but the problem here is Uthman himself got caught up in the misjudgment and the type of conspiracy that Marwan ibn Al Hakam was responsible for because he would not distance himself from Marwan ibn Al Hakam. So this tension now began to grow and the opposition came and surrounded the residence of Uthman and they began to exchange words. It began by exchanging words until someone from inside Uthman's residence shoots an arrow against one of the oppositionists and kills him. This is when these people from outside of the residence of Uthman climb over the walls and they go inside the home of Uthman and they assassinate Uthman. The person who assassinated Uthman was immediately killed by one of the house servants of Uthman who himself was immediately killed by those who went into his home. There's actually some details here, brothers and sisters, but because of the time factor we're sorry (but) we're going to have to skip some of these details as important as they are. What we are left here with is that after this was done most of the Muhajirin and Ansar, if not all of them, (this is important that it not leaves your mind), at this point in most of the history books, (we're talking about mainstream history books here), all of the Muhajirin and all of the Ansar went to Ali and said now we want you to be the leader. Ali at this time, even though he had sent his own sons- Al Imam Al Hassan and Al Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhuma)- to protect Uthman (so) these people (who) are saying Ali had a hand in the assassination of Uthman conflict with the facts of history but Ali did not want this bai'ah to be in his home. He said if I am to become the leader of the Muslims it has to be done publicly in the Masjid with the participation of all. That's the way it was done and they went to the Masjid and the bai'ah was done publicly with the support of all the Muhajirin and all the Ansar. The only ones who did not agree with that bai'ah was Muawiyah in Ash Shaam and those who were with him. This is what we had up until this point which up until now we realize that the Sahaba themselves, (i.e.), those who were with Ali did not launch any war with those who they disagreed with. They did not turn violent with those who disagreed with them. So why do we, Muslims- those who quote Ali or those who quote Uthman or those who try to make party politics out of all of this- get hyped up and try to kill themselves in the millions? Where did this come from? It's definitely not from the decisions and the intentions of the personalities that they relate themselves to. So it becomes difficult to surmount traditions and it becomes difficult to surmount cultures. We have 1,400 years in which certain impressions are set into cement in our minds so it becomes difficult to overcome these cemented ideas. Extremely difficult! It is at this point of difficulty that Allah tells you
You refer yourselves to the protection that Allah has given you and you're not to be separated from each other… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
 
Dear committed Muslims, brothers and sisters…
We are not making (or) we're not taking a leap away from what we have just said in the first khutbah. Today's sectarianism feeds on the distortion of these historical facts that you just listened to. Out of this sectarianism comes the accusation of the other Muslim being a Kafir. Just like we had the courage to look at history as much as we can, (while) trying to honor the word of Allah and the word of His Prophet we take a look at today's developments. These are happening today- we can't see them? We can't think about them? We can't understand who's instigating them? Recently, just in the past week the rulers in Arabia have been going through a fit because the evil ideas that they've been sponsoring and financing throughout the past decades if not centuries are coming home to roost. One of their ministers, the Minister of Information has been sacked because what happened last week when some Muslims were observing the 10th of Muharram some of their own products, (i.e.), individuals who were taught in their own universities with their curriculum (and) with their vocabulary "went out and shot at other Muslims in their own kingdom killing five of them and injuring 10 of them" as some reports say and not the rulers their (or) the upper crust (or) officialdom in Arabia looks around and says "wait a minute here- this type of action can spread allover the country and we'll have the kingdom falling apart." So there has to be a fall guy. Someone has to take responsibility for this. "It's you- Minister of Information." They closed down one of their sectarian satellite broadcasting TV stations called Wisal in which throughout all of these years they've been spewing sectarianism in its ugliest forms. They said "right now we're closing it." There's been contradictory reports. Some news reports said "it's closed" others said "it's not (ot) it hasn't." But the government there in that Kingdom says "we have nothing to do with this TV station." That's a flat lie because that TV station operates within their territory, they have guests on that TV station who are functionaries of that government but it goes to show you how nervous these rulers have become. In previous years they took their sectarian wars outside of the Peninsular. "Go and fight the Kafirs in Syria and in Iraq." That's what they were telling their youth. For a time, and still, some of them are fighting these wars that draw from distorted history accusing other Muslims of being Kafirs. Where do these come from? You tell us? Some of you have lived with Islamic awakening for the past 10, 20, 30, maybe 40 years- in all of this have you come across those who say "we have to kill other Muslims"? Where do these individuals and this type of organization come from? Organizations grow throughout the years, they don't just pop up in a year or two and then begin killing randomly and massively and then having international powers involved in their killing. There are drones, there are military missions, there's military build-up, there's budgets (and) treasuries involved in all of this- do you think we, the committed Muslims are involved in this, whether we are Sunnis or whether we are Shi'is? This type of Islamic sectarian "kill the other trend" and the other doesn't necessarily mean a Shi'i. In the past week these Da'ish types killed 500 Sunnis in Iraq. They'll kill anyone who disagrees with them. Where does this come from? Ikhwan Al Muslimin? Hizb At Tahrir? Hizb Ad Da'wah? Al Hizb Al Islami? Al Hizb Al Rifah? Jama'ati Islami? Take your pick of these Islamic orientations throughout all of these decades- these came from them? Or did they come from the type of mentality that is being financed? What we are seeing today is the wrath of Bandar- that Ambassador who used to live here in this city for over two decades. This is his wrath. His playing his last cards! They're nervous and let them stew in their nervous soup that they've created for themselves.
Be conscious of Allah's corrective power presence and express yourself with accuracy. (Surah Al Ahzaab verse 70)
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 7 November 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