Wednesday, September 4, 2013

12er Shia Ahadith Claim Quran is Uncreated ?

I just came across a blog which provided more false ahadith attributed the Imams of Ahlul Bayt. The Imams of Ahlul Bayt (as) could not have supported the Quran being uncreated when Imam Ali (as) said the contrary in Najh Al Balagha.

I asked Aba Ja'far (as) about the Quran. He said to me: "It is not creator (Khaliq) nor has been created (Makhluq) but it is the word of The Creator (al-Khaliq)."
عن زرارة قال سألت أبا جعفر (عليه السلام) عن القرآن؟ فقال لى: لا خالق ولا مخلوق ولكنه كلام الخالق
- Tafsir al-Ayyashi, Vol.1, Page 6-7
- Bihar al-Anwar, Vol.89, Page 120

From al-Ja'fari who said to Abi al-Hassan Musa (as), oh son of Messenger of Allah what do you say about the Quran: Has differed those who were before us, the people/nation (qawm) said:  That it has been created, and another people/nation said: it is uncreated (ghayr makhluq), so he (as) said: I am not saying about this what they said, but I say: It is the word of Allah The Almighty.
5 يد ( 4 ) لى : المكتب ، عن الاسدي ، عن البرمكي ، عن عبدالله بن أحمد ، عن الجعفري قال : قلت لابي الحسن موسى عليه السلام : يا ابن رسول الله ما تقول في القرآن : فقد اختلف فيه من قبلنا فقال قوم : إنه مخلوق ، وقال قوم : إنه غير مخلوق ، فقال عليه السلام : أما إني لا أقول في ذلك ما يقولون ، ولكني أقول : إنه كلام الله عزوجل ( 5 ) .
- Bihar al-Anwar, Vol.89, Page 118

From Fudhail Ibn Yassar, I asked al-Redha (as) about the Quran so he said to me, It is the word of Allah.
7 شى : عن فضيل بن يسار قال : سألت الرضا عليه السلام عن القرآن فقال لي : هو كلام الله ( 6 ) .
- Tafsir al-Ayyashi, Vol.1, Page 6
From Yasser al-Khadim, from al-Redha (as) that he has been asked about the Quran so he said: Allah curse al-Murji-ah, and Allah curse Abu Hanifa, the word of Allah is not created (Makhluq) in terms of what I have spoken, and in terms of what I have read and pronounced so it is word, news and stories.
 عن ياسر الخادم عن الرضا عليه السلام انه سئل عن القرآن؟ فقال: لعن الله المرجئة (2) ولعن الله أبا حنيفة (3) انه كلام الله غير مخلوق حيث ما تكلمت به، وحيث ما قرأت ونطقت فهو كلام وخبر وقصص (4).
From Ali Ibn Salem, from his father, I asked al-Sadiq (as) so I said to him: oh son of the Messenger of Allah, what do you say about the Quran ? So he said: It is the words of Allah, and the sayings of Allah, and the book of Allah, and the revelation of Allah and his oracle and it is the great book that falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy.
3 يد ( 6 ) لى : المكتب ، عن الاسدي ، عن البرمكي ، عن عبدالله بن أحمد بن داهر ، عن الفضل بن إسماعيل ، عن علي بن سالم ، عن أبيه قال : سألت الصادق عليه السلام فقلت له : يا ابن رسول الله ما تقول في القرآن ؟ فقال : هو كلام الله ، وقول الله ، وكتاب الله ، ووحي الله ، وتنزيله ، وهو الكتاب العزيز الذي لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه تنزيل من حكيم حميد ( 1 ) .
From the chapter of Bihar al-Anwar chapter that the quran is created (Makhluq) باب 14 : أن القرآن مخلوق and Tafsir al-Ayyashi chapter on the merit of the Quran.
Imam Ali (as) in Sermon 186 says "His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If had been eternal it would have been"

More info on my other post.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Imamate in The Quran

As you are aware, this khutbah comes to you from reality and from reality. This is no hypothetical presentation and it is not a reaction to the events that are taking shape around us. In this frame of reference you are aware that? Muslims are in the grip of a type of revival and in this context there is the issue of leadership. It's a legitimate issue, it's a nagging issue and as much as it's an important and central issue, it seems to have been approached from the extremes- either extreme negligence or extreme hyperbole. Our attempt here, in this set of circumstances- the people in Egypt as an example are trying to define or mould a leadership and they're going through ups and downs and forwards and backwards as they are doing that; the people in Tunisia have an Islamic leadership that makes frequent visits to the United States and other places in Europe (and) we don't know if they're looking for solutions in democracy or they are looking for crutches in what is supposed to be their reliance in Allah in these particular matters; (and we can't go through all of the instances that we have), but we have also now the Islamic leadership in the Islamic state in Islamic Iran that has withstood the test of time, the internal intrigue and the ferocious foreign intrusion into its internal affairs via wars, via hypocrites, via fifth columnists- you name it- in this arena there is an issue of leadership as we said. Leadership simply transferred into the Qur'anic Arabic language is Imamah and it is mentioned about twelve times in the Qur'an. The Imamah or Imam or A'immah is mentioned about twelve times in the Qur'an. At least one of these times the word has a negative connotation and because this concept has been sidelined to the extreme by those who fashion themselves as Sunnis and because it has been centralised to the extreme by those who fashion themselves as Shi'is. We think we should visit this issue in a thoughtful manner so we're going to have to quote these twelve ayaat in the Qur'an some what briefly where this concept is evoked.

The first one is in Surah Al Hijr ayah seventy nine- Allah says in reference to two societies, the society of Prophet Shuayb (alayhi as salaam) and the society of Prophet Lut (alayhi as salaam)
We, (meaning divinity or Allah), took revenge upon them- these two societies are of a certainty in a position of illustrious or instructive leadership.  (Surah Al Hijr verse 79)
As we said in one of the khutbahs before, when it comes to this word the aspect of ta'wil which is the primary meaning of the particular word Imam in this context (and) in those societies in the circumstances of those times- so Imam here according to some Muslims, (and we're trying to be open minded about this and looking at the broad range of explanations), means a record in the form of a book or a ledger so the meaning of the ayah becomes .
These two societies occupy a leading position that illustrate a lesson of guidance to those who follow.  (Surah Al Hijr verse 79)
Remember, these are societies that are at the front pages of Prophetic history so they are at a teaching (or) leadership position to societies that shall follow.

Then another ayah, number twelve in Surah Yasin- a surah that most Muslims read, especially at times when someone passes away. Allah is speaking of His ability and His power.
And everything we have taken count of… (Surah Yasin verse 12)
Once again, the word Imam to some Muslims means a register or a ledger or a book of accountability.
And everything we have taken count of in a register or book or ledger. (Surah Yasin verse 12)
But then, another meaning of this word in this ayah, (and the previous ayah), is
And everything pertaining to individuals and societies we have taken count of in reference to their leadership preference. (Surah Yasin verse 12)
As you may follow, in the explanation of these ayaat there's no contradiction. Its contradiction that begin to generate distances between Muslims but when there's no contradiction why should there be any distances among Muslims?

The most quoted ayah when it comes to Imam that many Muslims are some what familiar with is ayah one hundred and twenty four in Surah Al Baqarah. Allah says to Ibrahim (alayhi as salaam)
I am for sure developing you into an Imam or a leader for people; Ibrahim replies- and of my descendants, (meaning), will you have my descendants also be leaders? (Surah Al Baqarah verse 124)
Allah's answer to Ibrahim was
… My promise to you or My trust pertaining to this leadership shall not be acquired by Adh Dhalimeen. (Surah Al Baqarah verse 124)
Here, the word Imam has a consensual meaning. All Muslims whatever their school of thought, agree that Imam here means leader- positive leader, guiding leader, legitimate leader. (We think that if we go on like this it's going to consume a lot of time. We took three out of twelve ayaat therefore for the sake of time we're going to have to be picky and choosy about some of these ayaat).

In Surah Al Isra', ayah number seventy one Allah says
On that day of accountability and judgement We, (meaning Allah), will call forth every community of people in accordance to their Imam. (Surah Al Isra' verse 71)
Here the Muslim mind goes two ways in understanding Imam here. Either it's the Imam or the leader of their reference book, meaning their scripture, i.e. those who consider the Qur'an to be their guidance and their leadership We will call them forth and those who consider the Injeel or the Gospel to be their leader we will call them together etc. and so forth; but then the other more particular meaning is
We will call forth for judgement every community of people in accordance to the leadership that they designated for themselves. (Surah Al Isra' verse 71)
Once again, we don't have conflicting meanings (but) because in some of the people's minds today the issue of Imamah becomes almost an exclusionary issue, (i.e.) "I have my understanding of Imamah or Imam therefore if another Muslim doesn't have my understanding of it there's supposed to be some distance." We don't know where this distance comes from but they place a distance between them and the other Muslim where in their understanding of the same ayaat there is no distance. There's a difference of ta'wil or there's a difference of prioritizing the meaning but that doesn't mean there's a distance.

Then, in Surah At Tawbah, ayah number twelve we encounter an ayah that takes away from the over worked exaggeration of the word Imam or A'immah. In some people's minds this word has the connotation of the inference of ismah to it. If someone says Imam then a particular group of people think Imams then Ma'sums. Listen to this ayah. For those who have that type of thinking, we invite you to listen to read this ayah in which Allah- who's words are infallible and who's words are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth- Allah says to you and to me and to all committed Muslims
Wage war against the Imams of kufr... (Surah At Tawbah verse 12)
A'immah is the plural of Imam. So Allah is telling us that kufr has its Imams. So for those who are locked into a certain definition of Imams we invite you to take a closer look at the wording of the wahy, at Allah's very ayaat.
… for they certainly cannot be trusted or they have no trust to them; it may be that in this method of dealing with them they may cease doing what they do. (Surah At Tawbah verse 12)

Just in case someone says "that's just one ayah in the Qur'an…" OK- there's another ayah in Surah Al Qassas, ayah number forty one. Surah Al Qassas is basically concentrating on the clash of wills between Musa (alayhi as salaam) and the Pharoah (or) between Bani Isra'eel and the Pharoany system. Allah says
And We have rendered them A'immah who invite to the fire or Jahannum … (Surah At Tawbah verse 12)
Imams, leaders to Jahannum?! This doesn't sit well with some people who have not developed the Qur'anic understanding of life issues.
… and on the day of resurrection they have no help and no victory … (Surah At Tawbah verse 12)

So these are some of the ayaat that deal with the concept of Imamah. (As we said we had to exclude some ayaat simply because the time doesn't permit). So after you go through these ayaat, (you can go to any concordance and look at the ayaat in the Qur'an), one thing whatever ta'wil you may have in mind, you get the unmistakable impression and understanding that leadership is an important aspect of living a wholesome and fulfilling Islamic life. Now we come to the more particular issue that grinds down into a clash of concepts between those who think of themselves as Shi'i Muslims and those who think of themselves as Sunni Muslims.

So when we are looking at these two communities of Muslims in the world, (i.e.) the Sunnis and the Shi'is, there are some difficulties in surmounting some particular concepts pertaining to Imamah or leadership. There's no time to go into detailing these ideas or these conceptualizations but one of them is the concept of ismah, i.e. the leader is ma'sum or infallible. This has a historical portion to it when you speak about twelve Imams and it has a contemporary to it. There are none of these twelve Imams now who have political practical authority so why should there be an argument among Muslims when right now you and I, whatever our Islamic background information is cannot point to a particular person in that traditional explanation of the word Imam. This is not a Qur'anic explanation but in this traditional or historical explanation and say "look this is the Imam. He's on this city. He's that person. I can see him. I can hear him." It doesn't exist!

There's an issue of an nass, i.e. "that the Imam's are appointed by a divine statement either coming from the Prophet to begin with or coming from the Imams that followed him." OK- if there is a nass that is applicable in our time- present it. Other Muslims want to know. Come forth (and) tell us where is this nass in our day and in our time. For those who don't have a nass, (we're saying this because there's no time to explain it but we're dropping it for reference purposes), there's what is called walayat al faqih. We don't want to get into the internal sensitivities of this issue between those who affirm walayat al faqih and they have their own references and they have their own reasons for it and those in the Shi'i context, (we're not speaking about Sunnis here), who take issue with it and they quote certain of these historical references and they go on and on. 


We go back to the canopy of the ayah that has been quoted in the previous khutbah that tells us to close ranks and to maintain our togetherness.

Oh you who are securely committed to Allah guard against Allah as is due to Him in the full measurement of this guard and do not die except in a state of submission to Him. And hold firm to Allah's binding matter all of you- no exceptions- and be not divided; and bare in mind Allah's provision, favour and privilege upon you when you (who are now Committed Muslims), were once enemies of each other and then He reconciled your hearts and familiarized and acquainted you with each other and then, due to this provision, favour and privilege you became brethren of each other; you were on the edge of a pit of fire and Allah saved you from it; it is with this is mind and with understanding these dynamics and factors that Allah is going to guide us. (Surah Aal Imran verse 102-103)

We visited the meanings of these ayaat before so it is not time wise to repeat the meanings of this ayah. We're sure you know the general implications of it by now. We bring the meanings of this ayah with us to what can be considered the day that the Muslims of today look back at to explain or to rationalize or to justify their positions- and when speaking about today's Muslims what we mean by that is those Muslims who consider themselves either Sunnis or Shi'is. There is something peculiar about the statements that were said on that day and in that time frame that many Muslims use or quote to justify a position that has turned into a type of asabiyyah position; so for that reason we are trying to weed out the misunderstandings and get to the root of these issues so that we can comfortably liberate ourselves from this asabiyyah that did not serve the first generations very well and will not serve the latter generations very well, ourselves included.

Just a very brief recap of what was previously encountered- we said that there is an asabiyyah that was submerged in the psyche or in the social mind of the people around the Prophet- it doesn't matter who they were, generally speaking that asabiyyah was submerged. There were times that this asabiyyah expressed itself and we covered some incidents along those lines. We said that Al Muhajirin and Al Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) had their exchange of words and their exchange views on the day the Prophet was to be buried and in the exchange of statements we sensed that there is this asabiyyah but it wasn't an asabiyyah that was operational and it wasn't an asabiyyah that was divisive. So we mentioned the Ansar and what they said and we mentioned the Al Muhajirun and what they said. Now we come to take a closer look at a third party because at this time what we are witnessing is the emergence of Islamic parties. We repeat, there's nothing wrong with having Islamic parties because Islamic parties are political ijtihad. What makes them wrong is the component of asabiyyah, (i.e.) when people begin to think that their position is exclusive of others or their positions are supremacy positions vis a vis others. These are the elements of asabiyyah that give political parties their negative component. So the third Islamic party is referred to, depending on your books of choice, as Al Haashimiyin or Al Alawiyin later on in main stream Islamic books referred to as shiat Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (radi Allahu anhu). These individuals were not participating in the give and take between the Ansar and the Muhajirin on the day of saqifa which we covered previously. They were, (more or less) with Ali when he was preparing the Prophet for the funeral services. This was the first emergence of a political trend; before this may have been some ideas or some notions (or) some inclinations etc. but at this point it took on a configuration of the beginning of an Islamic party. They agreed with the Muhajirin that the leaders of the Muslims belong to the Quraysh. They didn't argue with the statement Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) said when he was contending with the Ansar quoting the Prophet the leaders come from Quraysh or the Imams issue from Quraysh. They had no problems with that but they were more specific, they didn't leave it in that general context and to be more specific about it Ali is the most qualified to become the leader of the Muslims now that the Prophet had passed on. Of course they had a very strong point of view. No one could argue that Ali had all of these features, characteristics, qualifications (and) credentials that others did not have to the same degree and to the same range that Ali had. No one argued that in that context. This political trend (or) political party in Islam took a further position- it said not only is Ali an inheritor of the Prophet as a relative inheriting some worldly belongings, he also is an inheritor in the moral sense of the word. But when we take a close look at the individuals or the personalities in this Haashimi or Alawi crowd we find that unlike the Muhajirin and unlike the Ansar there was no asabiyyah to them; in other words if a person spoke on behalf of a Muhajirin or if a person spoke on behalf of Ansar- even though they were not, at this point in the political sense, of an asabiyyah component but you could sense that beneath their statements there was a lurking asabiyyah- not necessarily belonging to them but to their crowd. This is very important to understand- please brothers and sisters because these people who say "they are Sunnis and they are Shi'is" overlook these details and these details are extremely important. So a person like Al Miqdad ibn Al Aswad (radi Allahu anhu) who was supportive of Ali didn't have his tribe of Kinda advocating around Ali. Salman Al Farisi (radi Allahu anhu), the Persian, also did not have an asabiyyah that goes with him in support of Ali. Abu Dharr Al Ghifari (radi Allahu anhu) who comes from the tribe of Ghifar did not have the Ghifari tribe in support of Ali. Ammaar ibn Yasir Al Ansi (radi Allahu anhu) didn't have his tribe along with him in support of Ali. So here unlike the other two positions Al Muhajirin and Al Ansar you can't detect a submerged asabiyyah. Now, this absent information feeds in to today's asabiyyah that wants Muslims- Sunnis and Shiahs- to kill themselves.

This consolidation of people around Ali was not born on the day of saqifah. There were weeks and months and even years that convinced people who were pro-Ali that he simply is the most qualified to lead the Muslims after the Prophet passes away. Remember, this information doesn't come to you from isolated sources. The information you are listening to comes from books that are considered references of all Muslims- At Tabari, Ibn Qutayba Ibn Sa'd, Al Bukhari, Muslim, etc. So let's not say (where does this information come from as) some people here who are going to throw in this asabiyyah of today when we are trying to reconstruct these facts. So from these books we are told that Al Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib (radi Allahu anhu), the Prophet's uncle and Ali's uncle, when the Prophet was passing away he came to Ali and he said to him, (which means something like), the Prophet is being recalled by Allah. Al Abbas is telling Ali go and ask him if the affair, meaning the affair of leadership, belongs to us then let him explain it and make it clear which tells us that this issue was not as clear as it should be. If this affair of leadership belongs to others, besides us, then let him make his recommendations for our well being. You sense in this statement that if al asabiyyah is going to turn to this Islamic society there's going to be a type of grudge that's going to take it out on the Prophet's intimates and his family. There's another statement along these lines and because of the time we're going to skip that statement but you understood here what is going on.

Now remember, in the Islamic public mind at that time, Ali had so many uplifting statements that were to his credit and expressed by none other then the Prophet himself. This is not the time to quote all of them but we think a couple of them will suffice. He said, and this is a statement that belongs to all Muslims; it doesn't belong to a sect (and) it doesn't belong to an asabiyyah. On the day of Ghadir Qum the Prophet said the Prophet takes priority even over the selves of the committed Muslims and then he says and all the Muslims are there listening and watching, (this is the Prophet here speaking), whoever I'm his mawla then Ali is also his mawla. Oh Allah be with those who are with him and be against those who are against him. This is a very strong statement and all Muslims quote it whether they are Sunnis or whether they are Shi'is but the problem is that they understand it in different ways. We want you, at this point, to ask yourselves what exactly is the meaning of mawla? Remember the Prophet didn't say whoever I'm his Imam then Ali is also his Imam. He didn't say that. He said whoever I'm his mawla then Ali is also his mawla. This amounts to be impartial about this, as objective as possible. This means that the Prophet was speaking to the asabiyyah component for those who are listening and trying to have the listeners (or) the committed Muslims overcome their asabiyyah, identify qualifications when they belong to a person and then do the right thing when the day comes.

The Prophet is speaking to Ali and he is saying you are to me what Harun was to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me. Harun (alayhi as salaam) was a Prophet who came after Musa (alayhi as salaam) but there's not going to be a Prophet that comes after Muhammad and all Muslims agree to this. We're not quoting a hadith here that is controversial or a minority hadith. So these are very strong nomination statements of what should be done when he is gone when it comes to the issue of leadership.

So when the Muhajirun and the Ansar were in a type of give and take (or) exchange of words as to who is going to fill in the vacancy now that the vacancy is gone the Hashimiyun were not there and the bai'ah was finished. The Muhajirun and the Ansar who were there gave their bai'ah to Abi Bakr with the exception of Sa'd ibn Ubada (radi Allahu anhu). Remember at first he made the case who the Ansar were and they should be in-charge. Well, he refused to give his bai'ah to Abi Bakr. We don't know of anyone- at that time or today or in all of the millions of Muslims in between- no one said that something is wrong with Sa'd ibn Ubada. He had the right to say no, I'm not going to give this person my bai'ah and it lives on with us until now except Muslims don't dwell on it. Muslims don't want to think about it. What's wrong about thinking about this? It will open up your freedom of conscience, your freedom of choice (and) your freedom of political action. When the people left as saqifah and went to the Masjid, at that time, (we know this is a little heavy word), it was almost like a bombshell that fell on the Hashimiyin. It's already done! The decision has already been made. Abu Bakr now is the successor to the Prophet because all the people with the exception of Sa'd ibn Ubadah who was there pledged their allegiance to Abi Bakr. Al Abbas, the Prophet's uncle and Ali's uncle, wasn't surprised. If you follow his statements in these books he sort of was anticipating something like this along these lines to happen. To be honest to the subject matter, now we have our history books giving us conflicting information about the bai'ah of Ali towards Abi Bakr. Some history books will tell you when he knew this happened he immediately gave his bai'ah to Abi Bakr; other history books will tell you no, he postponed it for around six months until his wife Fatima (alaiha as salaam) passed away. The explanation for that was there was a contention (or) a difference of opinion between Fatima and Abi Bakr. They didn't agree on the inheritance of the Prophet. Abu Bakr said he heard the Prophet say we the folks of Prophethood do not pass on any inheritance and the Prophet had some belongings in Fadaq and in Khaybar and so do they go on to Fatima or not because she's the only survivor in his family. Fatima said yes, Abu Bakr said no. So they had this very serious disagreement to the point that Fatima estranged herself from Abi Bakr, in other words she kept her distance and did not want to speak to him. Brothers and sisters- this is a difference in our history (and) it's a difference in opinions among those who were there at that time but does this difference, (you tell us), justify today some Muslims killing themselves? This is how it went. After Fatima passed away Ali goes to Abi Bakr, (according to this historical narrative), and gives his bai'ah. So whether he did it early on or whether he delayed it for some time, (and probably it was between the two- it wasn't immediately and it didn't take six months), because he was aware just like everyone else of the asabiyyah that was out there tugging at grabbing power. What are you going to do? Create an internal war among the Muslims? It would come to that if we submit to the opinions of some people. Right now we're going to cover the territory in which there were exchange of words between Abi Bakr and Ali.

So when Ali gave the bai'ah to Abi Bakr the rest of the Hashimiyin did the same. If something was terribly wrong about Abu Bakr leading the Muslims in the circumstances of asabiyyah that we are talking about and we are analyzing he wouldn't give the bai'ah. He would have been like Sa'd ibn Ubada- I don't want to give this person my bai'ah but that wasn't the case because this isn't an issue of personalities. It is an issue of social forces at work. This is where both Sunnis and Shi'is default. They fail to understand that there are social forces at work abbreviated in one word asabiyyah. So now the Ansar basically are no longer in the picture. They already made up their minds and gave their bai'ah to Abi Bakr who was considered to be the front runner of the Muhajirin, (so to speak), but now it became a matter of contention of sorts- not animosity. There's no hostility in this. We don't care how you're reading your history, there's no enemies here. There are no enemies. There's differences of opinions, there's differences of ijtihad- yes but there's no hostility, animosity (and) adversarial relations. Nothing of that because any Muslim who begins to understand this history like that has brought down all the education that the Prophet's lifetime was to these people around him. So now the argument was basically between the Muhajirin and the Haashimiyin.

When you go into this particular area in our history you feel (and) you sense that Ali here was being excluded. Ali here is speaking to Abi Bakr (and) he says to him I qualify for this position of leadership more than you- not only Abi Bakr. Even though he was personally speaking to him but what he meant by the plural you is the Muhajirin, I am more qualified for this task and responsibility than you the Muhajirin are. I am not going to readily give my bai'ah to you when you should be giving your bai'ah to me. When he says this he is not saying this, (number one), with an asabiyyah. We just described that his camp doesn't have the element of asabiyyah in it so from the get go. He is not burdened with the psychology, with the tribalism, with the history and with the culture the remnants of which were beneath the surface in the Muhajirin and in the Ansar from step number one. He was free from that. Ali is speaking to Abi Bakr saying you've taken this affair from the Ansar, this is in reference to the dialogue that was going on that we spoke about previously, your superior argument against them was that you were relatives of the Prophet- the Muhajirin; and here you appear to be taking this position from us, (the word ghasba means without our endorsement), it's almost like you forced this thing into your own camp. Ali is still speaking to Abi Bakr did you not claim to the Ansar that you are more qualified to fill in this position as Muhammad is one of you, i.e. Muhammad was a Muhajir just like the Muhajirin? The Ansar gave you the go ahead to lead and they acquiesced and had you become the commanders. Listen here very carefully, throw your asabiyyah aside, your emotionalism- all of that. We want to be fair to this subject. It's enough they suffered from asabiyyah, we still have to suffer from it?! Ali says my argument of evidence against you is the same argument (or) evidence you used against Al Ansar. Ali continues in another statement to Abi Bakr rather we, the Haashimiyin, saw that we had a right to this affair but you took it into your own hands excluding us. This is the fine line here that we want everyone of you to zero in on because this has become a matter of misunderstandings, estrangement of Muslims from each other and then a relapse into asabiyyah. When Ali is saying to the Muhajirin you excluded us from it but that exclusion was not on the basis of asabiyyah. This ijtihad by the Muhajirin could have been wrong. Only Allah knows what the alternative would have been like if Ali would have become the leader at the time. No one can prove a negative but the way the Muhajirin saw it is "yes we did exclude you but we didn't do that because of an asabiyyah even though in our crowd that element exists. We didn't do that because we have a grudge against you, Ali. We have no grudge against you. We did it to keep the Muslims together as much as we can within our own understanding of things." So the Haashimi political trend vis a vis Al Muhajirin was like the Muhajirin's political trend vis a vis the Ansar- as sabaq wa al qaraba. Remember those two words? The Muhajirin were saying to the Ansar we are pioneers and we are the relative material of the Prophet. The Haashimis said the same thing- we are the sabiqin inside the context of the Muhajirin and we are more closely related to the Prophet than the general context of the Muhajirin. The same thing applies here but the difference is you can't detect an asabiyyah in the Haashimi crowd but you can detect an asabiyyah in the Muhajirin and in the Ansar.

One of these statements there in the books of references that we all have said when all was said and done and Abu Bakr had become the Khalifa of Rasulillah, Ali would during the night time in Al Madinah go from street to street, (as it were), riding on a donkey and with him would be Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, and they would try to speak to the conscience of the Ansar reminding them of who should lead the Muslims but they would say to both, Ali and to Az Zahra particularly to the Prophet's daughter Oh daughter of the Messenger of Allah we have already endorsed our bai'ah to this man, meaning Abu Bakr. Ali had a status when Fatima was alive that was to be consumed by the asabiyyah that was beginning to surface after Fatima passed away. So you think Ali wasn't aware of these things we are talking about? He was aware of these things and much more that have escaped the history books. So it made sense to him to keep the Muslims together to go along with the ijtihad of the Muhajirin and to express his bai'ah to Abi Bakr. He wasn't in an opposition. He could have taken a political opposition position- "no, I'm not going to give my bai'ah. This is all wrong and that could have stood the test of time" and Muslims today could look back and say "Ali was in opposition to the Khulafa' and we maintain this opposition position today." But he wasn't! He disagreed with them. He differed with them. He had his opinions, his ijtihad (and) they had their opinions and their ijtihad- that's a given. Of course, one hundred per cent but there wasn't "I'm going to kill him because he's wrong! I'm going to kill him because he's a Kafir!" The same things these people today who attribute themselves to these personalities whether they're Sunnis or Shi'is are talking today. These are their words. These words of today of takfir don't have foundation in anything we are seeing that's supposed to be the day in which the Muslims politically parted company. None of it! Besides, when all of these things were developing from day to day (and) from week to week (and) from year to year do you think these Muslims were not echoing with the ayah?

 And hold firm to Allah's binding matter all of you- no exceptions- and be not divided; and bare in mind Allah's provision, favour and privilege upon you when you (who are now Committed Muslims), were once enemies of each other… (Surah Aal Imran verse 102-103)

This ayah was probably at their core, in their conscience, in their heart, in their mind, in their soul (and) in their spirit when all of these events were taking shape so they held the fort together until later on, (and we covered that part of history in a very long series of khutbah some years ago), but because today the events are imposing themselves on us- Muslims are killing Muslims; Muslims are calling for jihad against, not their enemies but against their ownselves- as it the ayah doesn't exist.

Brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…

To remind you with this day of taqwa, we are concerned with Allah's power and authority more than we are concerned with any other type of power and authority anywhere, anytime and because of that the ideas that are expressed in this khutbah are extracted not only from historical precedent but also from current developments. This type of khutbah would probably never be expressed if we, the Muslims altogether, whatever our Islamic affiliations are, were not going through a very critical time in which there are master strategies that want us to turn against each other in a bloody and almost genocidal way. Some of these Muslims are beginning to resurrect dead language and dead words. Now we have words such as Ar Rawafid, Az Zanadiqah, Al Kuffaar, An Nawasib coming into play?! And most of this, (these) people who are saying these things claim they substantiate it by going back to that particular part of history that we are focusing on and you can see by the way we are trying to as objectively as possible trying to express it you can detect that there is no basis for these people carrying arms right now to kill our own selves! We know at one time that was the punishment of Bani Isra'eel

… mortify yourselves, this will be best for you … (Surah Al Baqarah verse 54)

That was because of their misconduct with Allah and His Prophets. We don't have any serious misconduct with Allah and His Prophet for Allah to tell us to kill ourselves (and) to purge our lives from the sins and the serious defaults that we have with Allah and His Prophet! It doesn't exist! But we have insiders and outsiders who are closing ranks and want us Muslims to feel free to shoot ourselves (and) to entrap ourselves militarily. What are the Zionists doing? Some news items tell us "on the Golan Heights they placed certain zooming technology, binoculars and some other gadgets in which the Israelis can go up the Golan Heights and watch the civil war in Syria- Muslims killing Muslims." That's the way you like it? That's the way you understand your history? If that's the way you understand your history then this becomes the result. "Abu Bakr was an enemy of Ali, Ali was an enemy of Abu Bakr and if they were enemies we have to be enemies also?!" The flow of logic continues if that's the way you perceive yourself. What we want you to do is liberate yourself from that perception. Understand the complexity and the delicate issues that were at work at the time and learn from our own selves. You Shi'i can learn from Abi Bakr (and) you Sunni can learn from Ali provided you have an open mind and a non polluted heart because these were decisions that were made that are subject to review. These are not decisions that were made that were ayaat from Allah (and) direct orders. This was an area of human ijtihad and if this doesn't serve as a lesson for us we will be condemned to suffer the consequences even for another thousand years but it depends on us. You open your mind, you learn; you close your mind and you come to this asabiyyah- an asabiyyah that still is alive and kicking and now wears the attire of Islam. It has the details of Sunnis and Shiahs with all the unrefined information therein. Who do you think now feels comfortable with all of this? Obviously you should know the answer to that.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

What Qualified Abi Bakr (ra) To Become the First Calipah ? Stability

This is the first Jum'ah in the month of Ramadhan and it has been our method to try to bring the meanings of Ramadhan into the conscience area in our lives. This Ramadhan we will part with that method simply because there's an issue of life and death, there's an issue of conflict and wars, there's an issue of tension and misunderstanding that has set in that is disturbing societies and countries in the Islamic hemisphere of the world. So we will continue to cover this area that has become an area of argumentation and then an area of alienation and then of tension among the Muslims. We will try to continue where we left off bearing in mind the ayah of consolidation and togetherness in Surah Aal Imran in which the Creator says
Oh you who are securely committed to Allah guard against Allah as is due to Him in the full measurement of this guard and do not die except in a state of submission to Him. And hold firm to Allah's binding matter all of you- no exceptions- and be not divided; and bare in mind Allah's provision, favour and privilege upon you when you (who are now Committed Muslims), were once enemies of each other and then He reconciled your hearts and familiarized and acquainted you with each other and then, due to this provision, favour and privilege you became brethren of each other; you were on the edge of a pit of fire and Allah saved you from it; it is with this is mind and with understanding these dynamics and factors that Allah is going to guide us. (Surah Aal Imran verse 102-103)
Until the end of these ayaat which we covered before in which you were in previous khutbahs and on your own privy to its meanings. The last time around we said there were three major political trends after the Prophet passed on- three political directions, viz. the Ansar, the Muhajirun and there was the Hashimiyun (radi Allahu anhum). They may be referred to in different ways or in different words but these are basically the three political ideas that were around at that time. We explained how Al Ansar presented themselves at Saqifah when a decision had to be made as to who is now going to become the leader of the Muslims and we'll try to do this a little more in the future to fill in may be some of these gaps that result from the lack of pertinent information. And there was the Hashimi or the Alawi explanation of who shall be the leader when all is said and done. We should repeat here in these political orientations there is an element of asabiyah. We don't know what the exact word would be- we've been giving it a thought back and forth we've explained the word asabiyah as clannishness. It's a form of tribalism, it's an expression of social power around a particular ethnicity or race or nation- anything that can be more or less exclusive of the other. When you have that element you're excluding others because they're not part of you- that's when you detect al asabiyah. Another way of expressing al asabiyah is it is the social ego- that's the problem that these Muslims had to deal with; there's a social ego out there belonging to a certain group of people and a social ego belonging to another group of people or a communal ego or a tribal ego. We know an ego in the self is a problem but when it becomes scattered into a large number of people it hides itself because you can no longer attribute it to a particular individual (i.e.) "look that individual has an ego." Now it's dispersed, it's harder to deal with. We said that we sensed this asabiyah in Al Ansar, we sensed this asabiyah in the Muhajirin but it wasn't the asabiyah that was divisive. It was an asabiyah that was meant to be inclusive, (in somewhat of a contradiction of its own definition). Then in the camp of Al Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu wa alayhi as salaam) we found that because those who identified with him came from different asabiyah backgrounds they were the ones who stood out without an asabiyah. Then what happened months after the bai'ah in the saqifah that we spoke about, (that is very well known in the Islamic history books), Fatima (alayha as salaam), the Prophet's daughter passes away. This had, among other things, a political meaning because people's love for the Prophet of Allah extended to an expression of love to his daughter and that extended to Ali but when she passed away that affection that some people had for the Prophet's daughter was recalled from Ali. This is one of these areas that not many people factor in when they speak about this time period. The Ansar in the saqifah expressed some type of asabiyah when they did not publically acknowledge the virtues of the Muhajirin. We stated their position. We identified their strong points in their position but one of the weak points that comes is because they were unable to place their credibility or their merit on one side and the merit of the Muhajirin on the other side- that would have been the objective thing to do because all of them are in this together "so let's see how we come out" as opposed to how they come out. This wasn't done. There was a give and take and we covered that area there but the omission of this indicates that there's some type of asabiyah at work- not a distractive one because as we said it was submerged. We saw when there was a difference of opinion when they were going to give the bai'ah to Abi Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) (i.e.) they were going to pledge that Abu Bakr has become the leader we saw that the Aws began this process because Sa'd ibn Ubadah (radi Allahu anhu) was from the Khazraj. When they saw that "wait a minute here, there's a race here between one of the Muhajirin and one of the Ansar" and this one from the Ansar belonged to the Khazraj (and) didn't belong to the Aws themselves they were the first from all of the Ansar to go to Abi Bakr and say you are the leader. So this also indicates that we had this element of asabiyah present. The Muhajirin also had this element of asabiyah in them. When they quoted the Prophet and said the leaders hail or come from Quraysh and they were Qurayshis. The overwhelming majority of Muhajirun were Qurayshis so when they are using this hadith in this context it tells you that they are looking out for their own in the general sense of the word. All of them there knew that Islam had elevated them to a new level of akhlaaq, of altruism, of selflessness but still they carry in themselves a history- brothers and sisters, if a person becomes a committed Muslim it's not easy to get rid of, especially that element of asabiyah. You belong to some people- think about it as a tribe, think about it as a language, think about it as a culture, think about it however you want- who are not necessarily committed Muslims. This happens in your life. You personally, whoever you are, look around (and) think of your social self are you truly a member of a group of committed Muslims or along with that comes "well you belong to a certain tradition, you belong to a certain linguistic group, you belong to a certain nationality." All of these things are part of what brings together asabiyah. They lived with it then, we live with it now. So there's a silver lining to this asabiyah- it can become protective. Remember, we said the Prophet of Allah used this asabiyah for protection when he was in Makkah. The Hashimis were his social umbrella and the others, even though they wanted to get rid of him, couldn't do so because they knew that there is an asabiyah relationship between the Hashimis, Bani Abdi Manaf and the Prophet- they knew this. So the Prophet didn't say "wait a minute here…" In these circumstances, remember Muslims were persecuted at this time. He didn't say "I am not going to make good use of this asabiyah." He did. Its one thing to live in an asabiyah in a non-Islamic social order (and) it's another thing when you deal with asabiyah when Islam is the social order- two different things. So there was an underlying common denominator among all of these that the asabiyah of Quraysh maybe a fair trade off among all of them- the Ansar, the Muhajirin and the Hashimiyin. This usbah of Quraysh may be the best middle ground here among everyone.

Now let us look at what was said in those hours when Muslims had to decide who is going to be the leader. Abu Sufyan who up until that year had a history of an active opposition, social opposition, economic opposition, political opposition and military opposition to the Allah's Prophet. On all fronts he was opposed to Allah's Prophet. In the last year when Islam was the wave of the future, (i.e.) Islam right now has become the order of the day so he joined (or) became one of those tulaqa' in Islamic history, (i.e.) those who were released from their status of potential prisoners of war when Makkah was liberated. When he and Muawiyah and the rest of that clan sensed what was going on here- this person was not a dumb person; in his own world he was smart, he was shrewd; so he sensed what was going on with these different inclinations that were expressing themselves. When the popular will was to pledge that Aba Bakr was to become the leader he said oh descendants of Abd Manaf… Abd Manaf is the common grandfather of the Hashimis and the Umawis. So he's speaking here to two bloodlines that come from the same grandfather- Abd Manaf, so he is calling them- he is calling those who are called Alawis, he is calling those who are Muhajirin, he is calling those who were Umawis, Hashimis all of them. He said but who's Abu Bakr to take care of your affairs? This issue of leadership belongs to the Children of Abdi Manaf which means to the Umawis and the Hashimis- that is where it belongs, let's be honest with ourselves. (You) see, what he's doing here is he is coming out. He's speaking. At least he has the courage to say what is on his mind but he generalizes it. He didn't say it belongs to us- it belongs to that extended pedigree of the Prophet. Then he says in that same context on that same occasion, (we're trying to give you a sense of his wording), you mean to tell me that this affair- the leadership of the Muslims- right now goes back to the most insignificant part of Quraysh? What he meant by that was Bani Murra. Bani Murra are the people of Abi Bakr. He says you mean to tell me that all of this right now is winding down to an unnoticeable segment of Quraysh? Abu Sufyan had some rationalization for what he said because before the Prophet the leadership of the Arabians was in Makkah and the center of that leadership was those who were taking care maintenance-wise and otherwise of Al Bayt Al Haram and the Ka'bah and these were Banu Abdi Manaf- these were the Umawiyun and the Hashimiyun. So when he is suggesting something like that he is not suggesting it out of the blue. There's a background. It's like saying well they have experience and they have recognition. So Abu Sufyan's words were obviously wreaking with asabiyah. Then Abu Sufyan also has some poetry, (for those of you who understand the Arabic language and we're going to quote it. It's not my habit to quote this but it tells you (and) we'll translate the meaning). Words of truth but the asabiyah content of it is in the wrong direction, fallacious. He said Children of Hashim, don't let people take advantage of you especially Taym ibn Murra which is Abu Bakr's clan and Adi which is Umar's clan. This whole affair is from you and it goes back to you and the only one who qualifies to assume this responsibility is Abu Hasan, Ali which is in reference to Ali. This is what Abu Sufyan is saying. Now you tell us (and) give us an explanation, (especially those of you who come from the Sunni-Shi'i traditional way of thinking), why Abu Sufyan was saying something like that? Give us an explanation. We want an explanation! You can't just go about saying that this is a personal clash between Ali and the three Khulafa' before him! This wasn't a personal thing. Can we elevate ourselves and understand that there's a larger social reality that they were dealing with- all of them together. Then Abu Sufyan goes to Ali and he says extend your hand so that I can give you my bai'ah. Everyone was there listening to what he was saying. This is not something that, (you know), is in one or two history books- it's all over the place. Why would he say something like that? Then when things went the way they went what happened was- this is a criticism that comes towards Abi Bakr for those who haven't really thought through this process- after Abu Bakr became the leader he gave the commanding position of the Muslim army in the North in Ash Shaam to Yazid the son of Abu Sufyan- Muawiyah's brother. Some people would say "why did he do that?" If we were looking at just this one event, that's true- it is a valid question "why would he be doing something like that" but he wasn't doing something like that in a vacuum. There were a lot of forces at work and he was now trying to take away that asabiyah sting out of the Abu Sufyan clan. OK- here you take this position. Go lead these armed forces and go lead up there hundreds if not a thousand miles away. Just leave. Because later on you're going to understand that there was a civil war. What began amongst the Muslims was a civil war. It's called hurub ar riddah- inaccurately translated as the wars of apostasy. This has nothing to do with apostasy and we covered this previously. These were people who wanted to break away from the central authority- no Abu Bakr, no Umar no Ali (radi Allahu anhum)- no one. Who are you guys to be ruling over us? That was their psychology speaking. Concerning these three different orientations you'll find many ahadith. If you cover the books of hadith they're going to tell you the virtue of these and the virtue of those and the virtue of the others and you'll probably find them anywhere you look. The fact that we remain with here (and we know some people are going to be surprised by this), there is not one statement from the Prophet that you read and you find that says to every Muslim and every listener- Muslim or not Muslim- that the Prophet categorically said that Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman or Ali (radi Allahu anhum) or anyone else is the leader after him! If he had one statement (or) if there was one ayah in the Qur'an like that we wouldn't be living with the problem that we are living with today. If anyone can quote the ayah or the hadith we'll all obey. Is there an ayah like that? What is done is they will quote an ayah or they will quote a hadith but that ayah or hadith needs a twist of information. It doesn't by its own meaning and weight deliver that particular meaning so they go off on tangents trying to explain it. We think we've covered this ayah- it's in Surah Al Maa'idah if we can recall correctly.
… and if you don't do that you haven't communicated this message and Allah is going to protect you from people… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 67)
All of this. OK, everyone understands this general meaning. What's this specificity of it that says a particular person is the leader? Is Ali's name here? Of course there are strong suggestions that Ali should be the leader- that's a different issue. If there are words and statements that are vouching for Ali as leader that's different from saying "here he is- he's your leader. Do you understand this! I'm making it very clear for all of you to understand when I'm gone Ali is the leader." If it was expressed in this way, as we said, we wouldn't have had these issue that we have today but simply because there's a gap here in understanding what was meant by this we have what we have today. That doesn't mean that Ali was the most qualified. We want to pre-empt those who listen selectively- we want them to know this speaker believes in his heart of hearts that Ali was the most qualified to lead the Muslims after the Prophet but that's a different issue. Who am I? Who are you? Who is anyone else that our ijtihad becomes binding on the rest of the Muslims? The rest of the Muslims are looking at ayaat- what Allah said and what the Prophet said- that's what they're looking at. So in this give and take it seemed like there was a type of undeclared consensus among everyone that the middle ground is going to be Quraysh- that's as close as we can get to satisfying the thrust of Al Ansar and the Muhajirin and the Hashimiyin. If we're going to go outside of this we're going to prepare ourselves for an internal fight that we cannot afford because right now there are other powers in the Arabian Peninsula that are going to declare war on this Islamic self determination in Al Madinah and the did that. Immediately after Abu Bakr became the Khalifah of the Muslims then all hell broke loose in Arabia. So this time period that extends from Abi Bakr to Ali was a time period in which the Mujtahidin of those times- Ansaris, Muhajirin and Hashimis thought that it could serve as a "cool off" period. So, (probably this would be the best thing to say here (and) we're going to try to word it very carefully), the successorship to the Prophet was deputized to Abi Bakr for, (what would be in today's language called), the public interest. No one wants war to break out here so to avoid something like that let's give this responsibility to Abi Bakr and they did that with their senses and their minds and their conscience tuned in to the Qur'an and what they learnt from the Prophet. What they wanted to do was dampen (and) they wanted to throw a chill in an atmosphere of fitnah so that the average person now can catch his breath. Remember, they're coming out of twenty three years of wars between Al Madinah- well virtually; ten years of a hot war and twenty three years of a hot and a cold war. The wars that they just experienced was close to them. They were just last year, last month, the year before in these several years that have past. This is not something that strains the memory because they are living with it. They lived the consequences of these wars. In these wars people were killed. "My brother was killed, my uncle was killed, my cousin was killed." Who was doing the killing as far as the people with asabiyah are concerned? The committed Muslims. The sword of Ali was still dripping with the blood of the Mushrikin who now became Muslimin in the past year or so. These Mushrikin of the past twenty two years were fighting the committed Muslims and the person out there in the frontline who was sacrificing the most (and) potentially placing himself in positions of martyrdom and death was Ali. Are you going to say a person like this has become the leader of the Muslims immediately after the Prophet passes away with this asabiyah at work and this is a society of revenge- not to speak about asabiyah there's the issue of revenge- so people deep down in their hearts and in their internal minds had it out for certain individuals and Ali was one of them. Now the Muslims were not just the Muhajirin who came from Makkah to Al Madinah and the Aws and the Khazraj had welcomed them in Al Madinah, now the Muslims were in the tens of thousands in Al Hejaz and in Arabia and the overwhelming majority of them just became Muslims in the past year or two so how are they going to think? Do you think these are committed Muslims? These are Badriyin? These are as'haab al fath? These are the ones who sacrificed all that they had when they left Makkah? These are the ones who shared all they had in Al Madinah? No! These are not the ones we are speaking about- these are a few thousands. When we are speaking about the larger picture we are speaking about scores of thousands of people- a hundred thousand (at) hajjatul wada'. A hundred and fifteen thousand or so Muslims. Muslims?! Alladhina Aamanu?! Watch what you say and then bring this accuracy to this day when Muslims have to decide who is going to be the leader. So common sense told them the best thing to do here is to find a person who first of all is a senior. They had much respect for a person who is senior like sixties or seventies as opposed to a person who is still in his thirties. Abu Bakr as opposed to Ali- a person who is easy going, who did not participate in the frontlines and who did not have a sword that was still dripping with the blood of the Mushrikin on the order of Ali; someone who can be acceptable for everyone. So there was this consensus. Why is anyone upset with this? When Abu Bakr assumed this responsibility he didn't knock down Ali. He didn't get personal with Ali. He didn't say a statement that would harm the reputation of Ali. Why is anyone upset with this? If you look at the larger picture- don't look at two or three personalities, look at the larger picture- then you'll understand there's no tension here. There's no hostility here. So why is there tensions and hostilities amongst some of the Muslims today who attribute themselves to these pioneering Muslims? Because it's a matter of ignorance- that's all it is. This ignorance has to go away and has to be replaced with information that is impartial, that is not sectarian, that speaks truth to power and it doesn't compromise in the process. There's no compromise here. We're not trying to score for one against the other. If we begin to approach this with this type of thinking then our problems begin to wither away and then we can fulfill the meanings of the ayah
And hold firm to Allah's binding matter all of you- no exceptions- and be not divided; and bare in mind Allah's provision, favour and privilege upon you when you (who are now Committed Muslims), were once enemies of each other and then He reconciled your hearts and familiarized and acquainted you with each other and then, due to this provision, favour and privilege you became brethren of each other; you were on the edge of a pit of fire and Allah saved you from it… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Shaykh Saduq says Imams Did Not Want to Debate on the Quran being Created or Uncreated!

دثنا أبي رحمه الله، قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، قال: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني، قال: كتب علي بن محمد بن علي بن موسى الرضا عليهم السلام إلى بعض شيعته ببغداد: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم عصمنا الله وإياك من الفتنة فإن يفعل فقد أعظم بها نعمة وإن لا يفعل فهي الهلكة، نحن نرى أن الجدال في القرآن بدعة، اشترك فيها السائل والمجيب، فيتعاطى السائل ما ليس له، ويتكلف المجيب ما ليس عليه، وليس الخالق إلا الله عز وجل، وما سواه مخلوق، والقرآن كلام الله، لا تجعل له اسما من عندك فتكون من الضالين، جعلنا الله وإياك من الذين يخشون ربهم بالغيب وهم من الساعة مشفقون. He said: “`Alee bin Muhammad bin `Alee bin Moosa Al-RiDaa (عليه السلام) wrote to some of his shee`ahs in Baghdad: ‘In the name of Allaah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful, May Allaah protect us and you from this fitnah, and if He does, then it is a great blessing, and if He does not then it is a disaster. Our view is that the argument (discussion) about the Qur’aan is bid`ah, (both) the questioner and the answerer share (in responsibility). The questioner gets into (something) he should not, and the answerer is constrained into what is not (true). There is no creator except Allaah (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ), and what is the same is the created. The Qur’aan is the speech (kalaam) of Allaah. Do not make a name from yourself, or you will be astray (Daaleen). May Allaah make us and make you from those who fear their lord and those who are apprehensive of the Hour (Day of Judgement)” Source: 1. Al-Sadooq, Al-TawHeed, pg. 224, hadeeth # 4
I disagree with Shaykh Saduq, and I believe he took a similar postion as the Asharii school of theology. Refer to this verse from the Quran.
The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. (Quran 4:171)
The Christain usually refer to this verse and try to prove the superiority of Prophet Isa (as). On top of that Shaykh Saduq says this argument is futile ? If the Christians tell you since Prophet Isa (as) had the word of God spoken through him, he is superior then one can easily refute them and tell them if that's the case then a burning bush is the same status as Jesus. When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" Exodus 3 Also the Jews are in an agreement with us that Allah (swt) transcends time.
God transcends time. He has no beginning and no end
Now, when the Mutazilla said that God spoke to Prophet Musa (as) or via Prophet Isa (as) it doesn't mean God did it directly. Instead a medium was created and used to represent what Allah (swt) wanted to say. In another words since Allah (swt) knows everything he already programed it. On this topic a serious debate took place between the Mutazilla and Imam Ahmad. The Mutazilla who studied this area in detail and they gave a proper defense for Islam. Also, the reason I believe Shaykh Saduq didn't have an answer is because he unlike his student Shaykh Mufid, did not study under the Mutazilla.While Shaykh Mufid and his his two syed students studied under them and Sharif Razi supports the Mutazilla view. In fact, he goes further and attributes the Mutazilla view to Imam Ali (as). When we look at the Mutazilla chain they too connect to Imam Ali (as), and lot of their views go parallel to the views of the Ahlul Bayt (as). Let's see what Imam Ali (as) said about this.
It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside things nor outside them. He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice. He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says, but does not utter words. He remembers, but does not memorize. He determines, but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any sentimentality (of heart). He hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When He intends to create someone He says "Be" and there he is, but not through a voice that strikes (the ears) is that call heard. His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If had been eternal it would have been the second god. (Nahj Al balagha Sermon 186)

Sunday, April 14, 2013

10 Year Old Imam Answers 33,000 Q&A In One Sitting

In my last blog, I criticized Hisham al Hakam's story of the 500 questions he supposedly asked in his first meeting with Imam Sadeq (as). Now I found a hadith from the 12er shia books which goes to a new level of extreme. This time its not 500 questions and answers, its 33,000 questions and answers in one day.

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه قال: أستأذن على أبي جعفر عليه السلام قوم من أهل النواحي من الشيعة، فأذن لهم فدخلوا فسألوه في مجلس واحد عن ثلاثين ألف مسألة فأجاب عليه السلام وله عشر سنين.

`Ali b. Ibrahim from his father.

He said: A community from the remote people of the Shi`a asked permission to meet Abu Ja`far [the Second]
عليه السلام. He granted them permission, and so they entered. They asked him thirty thousand questions in one majlis, and he عليه السلام answered them all when he was ten years old. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 1304)

Here the Imam is only ten years old. Since he is the imam, the proof from the Dozeners is that he can answer 33,000 questions in one sitting. Once, again the oppression of the Ummavis and Abbasids have made the 12er Shia community go crazy. As an antidote the 12er Shia created many romantic narrations by attributing them to the Imams and as a result these romantic narrations  gave them a temporary  relief  from the harsh reality of tyranny.

Now, a 12er might say might object that its possible for a 10 year old Imam to have that level of knowledge because Prophet Isa (as) was also young when he defended his mother Bibi Maryam (as). In fact, the 12ers also have a narrations which uses Prophet's Isa's (as) analogy to defend imamate.

Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Safwan b. Yahya.

He said: I said to ar-Rida عليه السلام: We used to ask you before Allah bestowed upon you Abu Ja`far عليه السلام, and you would say, "Allah will bestow upon me a boy" and Allah has bestowed him upon you. Our eyes have acknowledged him. May Allah spare us from seeing your day but if that were to occur, to whom will it (i.e. the Imamate) go? So with his hand he pointed to Abu Ja`far عليه السلام while he was standing in front of him. So I said: May I be your ransom, this three-year-old son?! So he said: That would be of no harm to him, as `Isa عليه السلام rose by the proof when he was a three-year-old son. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 832)

In the 12er Shia states that Prophet Isa (as) was three years old when began to speak. On the contrary, this is false and contradictory to the Quran.

So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?" (Quran 19:29)
Now anyone with Aql (rationality) knows that a 3 years old boy is too old to be in a cradle. However, just to suit imamate concept the 12ers Shia decided to change Prophet Isa's (as) story.

Next, the analogy of Prophet Isa (as) cannot be applied. The reason is when Prophet Isa (as) presented the Yahood with extra ordinary knowledge, that knowledge was directly from Allah (swt) himself.

Of course, this verse about Prophet Isa's (as) speech is still a dispute between the Sunnis and Mutazillas. The 12ers on the hand differ on this. For example, Shaykh Saduq takes the Ashari position saying that speech of Allah (swt) is not created or uncreated. This explanation is vague, because if Allah (swt) is eternal then what he delivers through time has to be created. Also speech cannot be attributed to Allah(swt) since its a creations  way of communication. On the contrary, Syed Razi the complier of Najh al Balagha supporters the Mutazilla position, and the proof for this is in a sermon of Imam Ali (as).

Anyway, I will blog about the details in another post.


Friday, April 12, 2013


Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem.
Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), his Noble Companions and Family.
Committed brothers and committed sisters
Audio on (04-06-2013)
To take the previous khutbahs a step forward and to surround this mentality of degrading or debasing all the way to kufr the other Muslim- this is not a character and it’s not a manner of those who understand Allah and His Prophet correctly; so on our way to Allah we are going to shed light on these characters who verbally denounce other Muslims as a first step in eliminating other Muslims. All of us are readers of Allah’s book, the faultless Qur’an, and there are too many ayaat in the Qur’an, (more than we can quote here in khutbah even though we will quote some of them by necessity; it’s not our way of delivering a khutbah to quote at length the ayaat of the Qur’an but in this case it is necessary to do so), to relay to you, the listeners, how the positive and the optimistic attitude in the Qur’an is towards Alladheena Aamanu. An ayah in the Qur’an says
Indeed this Qur’an guides to what is most appropriate and it breaks good news to the committed Muslims that they shall have a tremendous reward (or) a voluminous reward. (Surah Al Isra’ verse 9)
Ayah number two in Surah Al Kahf
… and it breaks good news to the committed Muslims who do as salihaat that they shall have a regard or a reward of perfection, a perfected reward… (Surah Al Kahf verse 2)
Ayah number twenty five in Surah Al Baqarah says
… and break good news to those who are committed to Allah’s power and authority and do His good will, to them they shall have a paradise or gardens under which rivers flow… (Surah Al Baqarah verse 25)
to the end of the ayah. Ayah number two in Surah Yunus
… and give glade tidings or break good news to the committed Muslims, those who commit themselves Allah, that they will have a foothold of truth with their Sustainer… (SurahYunus verse 2)
Ayah ten to thirteen in Surah As Saff, (brothers, we don’t have the time to simply translate this ayah but at the end of it, it says
… and express good news to the committed Muslims… Surah As Saff verse 13)
We’re sure you are familiar with these ayaat so we don’t have to really translate every one. Another ayah
Verily those who say our Sustainer is Allah and they proceed straight-forwardly their visitations will be with Angels who come to them and say “don't fear and don't grieve/feel sad; We are your supporters or allies or reinforcement in this worldly life and in it you shall have what yourselves desire (or) wish (or) hope (or) imagine to have; an accommodation from He who always forgives and He is very Merciful.” Who has a better expression than he who calls upon or for Allah and does what is right and says I belong to Muslims (Surah Fussilaat verse 30-33)
These ayaat- and as we said, there are plenty others in the Qur’an that run this general course- of course, have their details to them, they have their context and all of this; (but) without getting involved in all of this, when you read these scores of ayaat throughout the Qur’an you get the unmistakeable impression of expecting what is good from Allah as long as you say Ash hadu an laa ilaha illa Allah wa ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulullah and you spend your behavioural life, your effortful life (and) your labour intensive life in doing what you say (or) in translating your commitment (or) your iman to amal as salih; but then there comes a hadith- and you know from the many khutbahs that you’ve listened to from yours faithfully that we don’t dwell on a particular hadith- we dwell on the ayaat of the Qur’an and in that context we mention some hadiths; but in this case we are going to dwell on one particular hadith because this is one of the hadiths that these types of people- these mukaffireen or takfiriyeen whatever you want to call them- who accuse other Muslims of being Kafirs justify for their behaviour. It is called hadith iftiraaq al ummah (or) the hadith pertaining to the disbandment or the dispersion or the breakup of the Ummah. A hadith that has what they quote as being al firqa’ al naaji’ah, the saved faction or the redeemed faction.
The first general observation for anyone who wants to spend their time to go through the books of hadith to find this particular hadith will find that this hadith is quoted with different words and even contradictory words. The most popular quotation of this hadith- OK, what does this hadith say? These people who scramble around this hadith say that the Prophet said the Yahud were divided into seventy one factions and the Christians or the An Nasara were divided into seventy two factions and this Ummah will be divided into seventy three factions… Now, to trace the irreconcilabilities of the many quotes of this hadith in the books of hadith… For those Muslims who refer to As sihah as sit- the books of authentic or undisputable hadiths- this hadith was only mentioned in Sahih At Tirmidhi. It wasn’t mentioned in the rest of the books of hadith. One form of this hadith ends saying … all of them, these seventy three factions, are in the fire except one. Another rendition of this hadith says … all of them are in the fire except one and this one is al jama’ah. Here, when we listen to this word, those of us who have a sense of Islamic history will begin to detect that this word al jama’ah which came into circulation during the Umawi reign has some type of Umawi influence in it. For those of you who are not aware- the coining of the word Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama’ah is not Qur’anic phrase (and) it is not a Prophetic phrase. This phrase was put together when Mu’awiyah finally consolidated his power after the assassination of Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu). This is the time when the wording Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama’ah came into vogue. Yet another formulation of this same hadith all of it begins the Yahud were divided into seventy one factions and the Christians or the An Nasara were divided into seventy two factions and this Ummah will be divided into seventy three factions… When we’re saying this to you, remember- dear brothers and sisters, committed Muslims- when you hear this these people who are amplifying this hadith nowadays are saying that the Prophet is saying this; as if the Prophet, (number one), is forecasting the failure of his Ummah more than the failure of Al Yahud and An Nasara?! We don’t think, having a Qur’anic mind and understanding Allah’s Prophet in his substantiated hadith is going to be glooming and dooming about his own Ummah?! Nevertheless, the connotations and the meanings of these quotes that we’re bringing you deliver that sense! He is saying … all of my Ummah is in the fire except one and that one represents what I am in addition to my companions. Here is another indicator- for those of you who have gone through Islamic literature there are two type of Muslims that go on alert. When the word as’haabi is used the Shi’i Muslims go on alert and when the word Ahl Muhammad or Ahl Al Bayt is used in a particular hadith the Sunnis go on alert .There’s no reason for anyone to go on alert. The only thing here is you try to place whatever that hadith is in the context of the Qur’an; if it fits in that context you begin to think through it, if it doesn’t fit into that context don’t sweat over the small things!
Another ending of this same hadith says- you see how many endings this beginning of the hadith has?!- … all of them are in the fire except as sawaad al a’dham- an overwhelming majority. Now, if you’re thinking about the hadith, this would mean that the seventy two of them- because there is one that is redeemed, al firqa’ an najiah- are condemned to the fire. Now if you apply the description in the end of this hadith which means the overwhelming majority of the ummah is saved to the ones who are speaking today about this particular hadith to justify the description of kufr upon other Muslims you’d see that today this hadith contradicts them because they are not in the overwhelming majority of the Muslims. They never state it because they know that when they state these hadiths Muslims out there are not thinking! They can state a hadith like this that ends with … all of them are in the fire except the overwhelming majority of the ummah not knowing that they are contradicting themselves. We’re skipping some here. There’s a lot to the ending of this same hadith that begins in the same way but ends with different sentences. One of them says … all of them are in the fire except one… What is this one? He is describing it- Al jama’aat, al jama’aat.
Then he says in another hadith- the same hadith but another ending. … all of them are in the fire except one millah. When the word millah is used, it brings to mind our ignorance. Brothers and sisters, listen carefully- the word Ummah is a Qur’anic word, the word millah is a Qur’anic word, the word ta’ifah is a Qur’anic word, the word firqah is a Qur’anic word, the word nihlah is used- but who? You’ve heard these words before. We’re sure you’ve heard them many times but can you tell us (from) scanning the vocabulary of the Qur’an, the ayaat and the verified hadith what’s the difference between an Ummah and a millah? What’s the difference between a ta’ifah and a firqah? We venture to say that- with all due respect to the contemporary Ulema’ and with all due respect to the Ulema’ of the past- we don’t have a functional and an operational distinctive definition of these words; which goes to say to us we haven’t thought through the wording the ayaat and the wording of the ahadith. Then, if the other ahadith are saying … all of them are in the fire except one firqah this hadith is saying … all of them are in the fire except one millah, has anyone, especially these takfiris who right now have the microphones and they have the bank accounts and they also have the weapons, given these ahadith a second thought and explained what they mean? No! They’re just using them to justify their hostility and their warfare against those who they consider outside of their definition of who is al firqa’ an naji’ah.
Another one ends with, (we’re skipping some, we have to), … all of them, i.e. the seventy two factions of Islam, (that they tell us are doomed), in the fire are dhalalah… All of this has become dhalalah! … except the firqah of Islam wa jama’ata hum. What all the rest say- that they are al firaq al Islam. Once again you find here there is a political hand in the hadith if you can go back to the political time frame of the writing of this hadith and what was happening as far as Umawi and Abbasi control of the Muslims.
Now here is the kicker, (so to speak). One of these hadiths- you know, the same hadith we quoted at the beginning the Yahud were divided into seventy one factions and the Christians or the An Nasara were divided into seventy two factions and this Ummah will be divided into seventy three factions… and this is the way that this particular hadith ends … all of them, these seventy three factions, are in jannah except one. What happened? We ran across all these other ahadiths saying … all of them, these seventy three factions, are in the fire except one (but) this particular one says … all of them, these seventy three factions, are in jannah except one. Isn’t this contradictory? Some people who took it upon themselves to say the Prophet said this hadith are contradicting themselves! The body of hadith is a polluted body! We’re sorry to say this and it hasn’t been filtered yet. None! There hasn’t been a coordinated, serious, honest Islamic effort to filter these hundreds of thousands of ahadith that we have. We here are just zeroing in on just one particular hadith and coming up with these inconsistencies.
The raawis of this hadith are the following: Abu Hurairah, Anas ibn Maalik, Abdullah ibn Amr, Jaabir ibn Abdillah, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Awf ibn Maalik, Amr ibn Awf, Abu Ad Darda, Waafilah ibn Al Asqa and Abu Ummah Al Bahili. These are the who we are told… You see, in the books of ahadith when a person- whether he is Al Bukhari or whether he is Muslim or whoever he is- want to bring us a hadith or write down for us that the Prophet said a certain statement they need narrators. So the original narrators we are told by these writers of the hadith- whether is it Al Bukhari or Muslim or An Nasa’i or Abu Dawud or ibn Maajah- did not quote this hadith. It’s only At Tirmidhi who quoted this hadith. Let us mention, (before we forget), it’s only certain editions of At Tirmidhi that mentions this hadith. You can go to a certain edition of Sahih At Tirmidhi and you’ll not find the hadith in it! So when we say only At Tirmidhi mentioned this hadith it’s only some published editions which will have you think. What? Is someone playing around with the publications of these books of hadiths? It’s obvious in this case! It’s also been narrated as a hadith mawquf and a hadith mursal. Now you’re going to ask what’s the difference between a hadith that is mawquf and a hadith that is mursal? A hadith that is mawquf is a hadith that goes all the way to the sahabi but doesn’t go to the Prophet- the sahabi said and then he quotes the hadith but he doesn’t say the Prophet said. Al mursal is yet a weaker type of hadith that is quoted by at Tabi’i- it’s not even quoted by the sahabi or the Prophet. This hadith falls into these two other categories.
Then, (we don’t have the time, but we have the information- we simply don’t have the time), we’ll summarise to tell you all of the sequential narrative- (i.e.) so and so said that so and so said all the way back to the Prophet pertaining to this one particular hadith that is used to justify the kufr of other Muslims- all who narrated it had either a person who is either untrustworthy in that sequence or a person who is not reliable or a person who can only be quoted when others have already quoted the hadith. When we put all of this together we realise that this hadith is flawed. It should not be used or quoted by Muslims as a reliable hadith.
The scholars of old, not the contemporary scholars- the contemporary scholars are not showing us much courage when it comes to the body of hadith even though- we want to tell you this, and this is on reliable authority- some of the highest ranking scholars scholars in Egypt about twenty or twenty five years ago had a get together and they said to themselves, (I may have mentioned this to some of you but I haven’t mentioned this in a khutbah), after discussing certain matters “we have a problem in the literature of hadith.” Remember, they dare not say this in public. “We have a issue with the body of hadith that we have and our primary problem is concentrated in the riwayaat of Abu Hurairah.” No one disagreed. Among themselves they recognised the problem that has to be worked on. OK- someone recognises a problem. No one says Abu Hurairah is ma’sum or Abu Hurairah is a person who doesn’t make mistakes or this sort of thing. OK- we have a problem so let’s fix the problem. So they reach this point- “OK-we have to fix a problem.” But then they know very well the weight of traditions and the weight of history and culture so they said “who qualifies from among us to begin a task of scrutinising the hadiths of Abu Hurairah”, meaning some of them are valid and sahih hadiths and others are not- because it’s sort of taken for granted from the build-up of these traditions and the ritualistics that have gone down from generation to generation (that) if someone is going to take on Abu Hurairah he’s probably going to run into this brick wall of traditions, he’s going to discredit himself and nothing is going to happen. So with this in their internal thoughts they looked at each other and nominated one of them, (may Allah bless his soul, he has passed away maybe about eighteen years ago or so). They said “you are the only one who is able to do this.” He looked at them and said “but I’m sorry. I have to apologise. I’m somewhat in my latter years in life and this is too much of a task for me alone.” This hadith the Yahud were divided into seventy one factions and the Christians or the An Nasara were divided into seventy two factions and this Ummah will be divided into seventy three factions… and then we quoted for you the many last sentences of this hadith; some of them irreconcilable and some of them contradictory and some of them don’t make sense. So this hadith is known as a hadith ahaad. It is not a hadith mutawaatir. We’re saying this for those who are in this technical area, (it’s alright if we part company with some of you here (because) we’re available to you after the khutbah), by consensus of the people who narrated the ahadith and those who worked their life in the area of hadith the hadith ahaad is not relied upon in what are called matters pertaining to belief. That means (that) if you accept it or you don’t accept it, it’s not going to harm the feature of imaan in you. The ahadith ahaad are considered in what are known as practical matters, not ideological or theoretical or theological matters. Whether you accept or don’t accept the ahadith ahaad it doesn’t add or it doesn’t subtract from your imaani character.
Then this hadith in two other aspects of it- one aspect is the aspect of Ummah. Please brothers and sisters- when you come across the word Ummah, this is a Qur’anic word. In the Qur’an when Ummah is attached to the noun that refers to you, the committed Muslims, it is a positive word.
And, indeed, this is your ummah, [when it is], one ummah; and I am your Sustainer- and, thus, conform unto Me. (Surah Al Ambiya’ verse 92)
See- there’s a positive connotation to the word Ummah. When the Prophet uses the word Ummah and relates it to himself it comes also in a favourable relationship. When he says as a shafa’ah when he is to present his words of pleading with Allah he says Ummati Ummati, my Ummah, my Ummah; but when just the word Ummah is used, it doesn’t necessarily mean of deliver a positive meaning. So in this hadith we have a contradiction in the way the word Ummah is used in this hadith, and this Ummah will be divided into seventy three factions… This is a negative reference or inference for the word Ummah. In the Qur’an and in the other ahadith when this happens there is a positive inference and reference of the word Ummah. So please, whenever this word Ummah is bounced around in certain hadiths or in certain quotations and take in mind the way it is used in the Qur’an because that’s the reference point.
Then the other one is (that) this hadith brings up what has been and what continues to be- this is not the place to solve this issue but we just want to bring it to your attention- a controversial issue, i.e. does the Prophet know the details of al ghayb? We can quote ayaat in which we are told that.
It is Allah Who is the One Who knows the domain of the unknown; He does not have anyone access that ghayb except to those who He is satisfied with of Messengers… (Surah Al Jinn verse 26-27)
Another ayah
… no one knows al ghayb except Allah … (Surah An Naml verse 65)
There are other ayaat and however way you fall in this, the question here when we’re talking about this particular hadith is that if the Prophet of Allah knew in his heart and in his mind that in the centuries to come or in the generations to come his followers are going to be divided, did he know exactly the number of these divisions and these factions? This is a very critical issue. Then, what describes a faction? What is it? What makes a faction, or this firqah that is used, among the Muslims? The word firqah which roughly translates into a faction- what makes a particular group of Muslims a faction? No one has ever told us. For some of you who are familiar with Islamic history, Al Ash’ari counted more than a hundred factions. Where does this place this hadith? Someone say that Al Ash’ari was lying?! Or does it somehow bring a question mark to your mind? Another historian, Ash Shahrastaani came and said there are seventy six. Ibn Hazm counted five. We don’t know if we mentioned this- of the scholars of old who discredit this hadith altogether- Ibn Hazm was one of them, Ibn Wazir the Yemeni scholar was another one. Of course, they did their research (and) they went into this in depth and then they said “this hadith is groundless, it’s baseless!” It’s the same hadith that right now is coming alive in the context of these civil wars when there are certain big interests in this world that want to see Muslims kill themselves. This is one of these hadiths that is used in that context.
Dear brothers, dear sisters, dear committed Muslims…
The world that we are in is not a world that recognizes our equality. The policies and the politics that are enforced today mean to pit us against each other. Unfortunately, because there are gaps in our Islamic knowledge, these people who are very busy seeing to it that we are fragmented to the optimum extent have studied who we are. If we don’t think about our own selves- and many of us don’t. This is one of the examples just cited for you in the first khutbah. We haven’t given a thought. (Has) anyone come and scrutinized one of these statements that makes a particular Muslim group feel that they are above everyone else? Now, when someone quotes this hadith that was quoted in the khutbah about the seventy three factions that were projected by Allah’s Prophet to become the fate of his Ummah except for one it gives them a sense of superiority. They become biased and then they become self righteous- they are the only ones. What happened? The ayah describes Allah’s Prophet
… as a mercy unto the peoples and the domains of the world. (Surah Al Ambiya’ verse 107)
When you ferment this hadith in your mind you begin to think there’s a self-righteous distance between whoever or whatever that definition of the redeemed faction is and the rest. There’s not a compatibility between the way these takfiris understand it today and the general ayah that sweeps it aside.
… as a mercy unto the peoples and the domains of the world. (Surah Al Ambiya’ verse 107)
Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah and those who are with him are strong, uncompromising, harsh and robust against the Kuffar; they are compassionate, merciful and kind towards themselves... (Surah Al Fath verse 29)
Has anyone heard that? Let’s say (or) let’s concede for just a second that OK- seventy three division or seventy three factions is who we are in this world- now what do you do? Turn around and begin to cut down all of the rest of the factions? You kill them? What happened to
… they are compassionate, merciful and kind towards themselves... (Surah Al Fath verse 29)
What happened the ayah? (It) flies away from the mind to accommodate the dubious statement like this? The Prophet of Allah is predicting all of his Ummah is in the fire? But it takes thought and these types of Masajid that are financed all around the world don’t want you to think. Don’t think! That’s the message that goes out from these khutbahs every Jum’ah and when we have Muslims who don’t think we have Muslims who can be led very easily to their slaughter house by other Muslims. It is unfolding in front of our own eyes. There are a lot of these slaughter houses in different countries. Can you see them? But try to understand where the source of this problem emanates from. Where is the source? You will inevitably be led to these self righteous holier than thou religious functionaries financed and supported by the Saudi regime. If we’re incorrect on this anyone can correct us on this. We’re accessible. We are here in the street. But as time goes by and as we have raised the alarm before, these Saudis continue to get away with murder and mayhem because of the religiously supervised and the religiously instigated ignorance every Jum’ah, every Eid, every lecture (and) every conference that they sponsor or that they finance and to us- we have Allah. We have no one and nothing else.