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.


 

ISLAMIC UNITY: 72 SECTS MYTH & WEEDING OUT DIVISIVE

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 http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/297255 (04-06-2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd6KlapVl0E

ISLAMIC UNITY: WEEDING OUT DIVISIVE LITERATURE PART 3

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.

Hesham ibn Hakam's So Called First Meeting with Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as)

I read Hesham ibn Hakam's biography by Mamghani, and already I see that the book is filled with lies just to boost of the status of the 12er shia chief Hesham ibn Hakam.
The 12er shia tell us Hesham ibn Hakam met Imam Sadeq, and in his first meeting the dozener's chief got an opportunity to learn from the imam. Lets see how the 12er shia narrate this event.

Mamghani writes:
"Hesham asked the Imam [a] about five hundred problems and questions in his first meeting and received correct answers for all of them. As a result he was so much enchanted by the divine greatness of the Imam [a] that as long as he was alive, he was the greatest defender of the Wilayah of the Ahlul Bayt (the guardianship of the Prophet's household [a])."
(Tanghih al-Maghal by Mamghani; "Usul Kafi" vol.2. Pg. 13)


500 questions in one meeting ? Even if we consider one question to be answered per minute it would take over 8 hours to get through 500 questions. Also, its seems like Hisham had some superhuman strength to absorb all this information in one meeting.  Aside from that there are no works which tell us about any of these 500 questions. In fact, even 1 question is not narrated for this meeting.    

When Muawiyah Gets Absolute Power!

We spoke previously and we will continue to explain currently a particular attitude, a holier than thou psychology that breeds intolerance and generates bigotry and displays prejudice and is defined by narrow mindedness and cramped ideas. This type of psychology and mentality that doesn't accommodate a variation of legitimate ijtihad can no longer be exempt from our criticism and exposing it for what it is. We know that we are speaking about people or individuals who are closed minded. Some of them are verbally literal. We know that they refer to texts in a shallow way that almost excludes the minds interpretation of that text in a way that may not necessarily agree with them. We know this. We also know that these types of individuals and groups suspect the mind itself. Any thought that is generated by an ayah or a surah or a hadith or the seerah of the Prophet that is not their thoughts and their ideas become fuel for their antagonism and ammunition for their hostilities. We also know that it would be impossible to have a generation or a society that does not have its fanatics (and) the type of attitude that we are speaking about. There's not going to be a society and a generation that is free of that! They are always going to be around. If we can learn something from history and if we can learn something from the Qur'an and the Prophet then we should realize that you can't put an end to this type of psychology and mentality; what can be done though is to limit their numbers- not physically; no one wants to eliminate any of them physically. That's nonsense- but curtail their fanaticism and their blood lust via conviction and convincing them of their wrong ways. This can be done. To take this general introduction and to come to the continuation of trying to bring taqwa (i.e.) the power presence and the authority dominance of Allah into this scenario we said previously that there are two words right now in our world, i.e. the re-awakening of Muslims- some of them waking up kicking and screaming and shooting and killing which is not the way things are done but this is a general characterization of what's going around in our world. There are two words which they cling to without even understanding what they are doing! One of these words is al haakimiyah which means ruling or governorship and the other word is jahiliyyah which most of the times is simply stated or translated as the word itself- jahiliyyah.

 

In the previous khutbahs we tried our best to shed light on the background of these two words. We said these are Qur'anic terms and this is a Qur'anic vocabulary that we are speaking about. Just to help you out when you read the ayaat of the Qur'an we mentioned previously that there are two Qur'anic words that are not been given a proper definition in today's world- and this is what happens when Muslims don't think; these two Qur'anic words are al hukm and al wilayah. To help you out in some of the ayaat in which these two words are mentioned- obviously this requires thought. (For) people who don't think these words are going to go beyond them or they will automatically shut down in their minds because for one reason or the other, and there are a million reasons out there, they've been programmed early in life to close their minds when they hear the ayaat or the ahadith- that's the way they function. You bring them to a khutbah (or) you bring them to a lecture and if there is some intellectual effort that is expected they don't partake in it. Notice, in some ayaat in the Qur'an Allah says

… and he who prioritizes as his authority and ally Allah and His Messenger and the committed Muslims... (Surah verse 59)

Notices that there's no ayah in the Qur'an that says wa man yuhakkimi Allaha wa rasullahu wa alladhina aamanu. Here is an aromatic and a DNA difference between hukm and walayah. On the flip side of this, (please continue thinking; if you're not thinking then you're not understanding what's being said), Allah says

Is it the statecraft of jahiliyyah that they seek… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 53)

There's no wording in the Qur'an that links jahiliyyah and walayah. There is no ayah such as afa walayati al jahiliyati yabghun. We can't exhaust the ayaat of the Qur'an in which there is the word hukm and its derivative.

… that you judge or govern among them with what Allah has brought down to you in scripture and revelation… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 52)

Another ayah in the Qur'an

… they want to refer their decisions or their judgments or their policies to At Taghut when they were ordered to take issue with At Taghut. (Surah An Nisa' verse 60)

Yet another ayah in which this particular word and its derivatives is used.

 

Then, on the other hand

… over there, al wilayah, belongs to Allah, Al Haqq… (Surah Al Kahf verse 44)

Another ayah that has the word walayah in it.

… your ally is Allah and His Messenger … (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 55)

Another ayah that has the word walayah or its derivative in it. These are not the same. Brothers and sisters- if we bring these ayaat to our mental faculty (and) if we give these ayaat the thought that they deserve (and) the ideas that they generate then we should not be living in the type of ambiguity that feeds the fanaticism that we are privy to in today's world by individuals who may in their hearts of hearts have good intentions. They may mean well but that doesn't carry much weight if they don't understand what Allah and his Prophet are saying to them. This is where we are. We don't think- however the ignorance of these two key words that factor into today's general Islamic revivalism, as much as that is the case- there is no Muslim as ignorant as he or she may be will come and attribute the sources of al hukm or al walayah to others besides Allah. Thank Allah that as much ignorance that has settled into Islamic societies and as much lack of knowledge as there is in the Islamic public mind, there still is a general understanding that al hukm and al walayah don't belong as sources of values or legislations to human beings in an exclusivist monopolistic sense. What do we mean by this? To try to maybe reference this in an ayah in the Qur'an, there is no Muslim that believes what

The Pharaoh said I don't know of any Ilah that you have besides me… (Surah Al Qassas verse 38)

Ilah here in the vocabulary and the literature of many who think or try to think through this Islamic reinstatement is equivalent to Haakim. Some of these scholars in explaining this ayah

The Pharaoh is saying to his people or to his citizens I know no other authority that belongs to you besides me… (Surah Al Qassas verse 38)

In another statement recorded in this eternal Qur'an, the same Pharaoh says

… The Pharaoh is saying to his people or to his citizens I do not show you except what I see and I do not guide you except to the right way. (Surah Al Ghafir verse 29)

You see, he's attributing to himself the position of guiding people to what is right, to what is prosperous, to what is progressive, etc. etc. Even though we are inflicted with a large dose of ignorance, still no Muslim will attribute this position of Ilah knowingly with whatever amount of information that he or she has to a ruler- whoever that ruler is.

 

Then we come to the ayah that is quoted by many of today's young and enthusiastic (who) unfortunately thereafter turn into the fanatical types in Surah Al Maa'idah that says

… Whoever does not govern … (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 47)

This is the other word- hukm. Of course the word hukm has a much broader meaning than this but this is the mainstream interpretation here.

… those who do not govern in accordance to what Allah has revealed, then they are Kafirs. (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 47)

Because we, the Muslims, have a vacuum when it comes to governance- there is no one out there in the position of governing who is a Wali of Allah or an Imam from Allah in the general mind that has that position so therefore

… whoever is out there governing with the instruments of government that are not revealed by Allah than they are Kafirs. (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 47)

Our rethinking of this- Hukm has the meaning of also whoever decides. One of the meanings of hukm is

… whoever decides something that is not in accordance with what Allah has revealed is a Kafir. (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 47)

So if you are a decision maker- you could be a decision maker in the family; you don't have to necessarily be head of state- and you decide on something (or) you rule on something in your family that is contrary of what Allah has revealed then you are a Kafir. But in today's world of built up enthusiasm with a lack of thinking people right now are focusing their attention on the head of state and everything between the locale, your neighborhood, your residence and the highest office in the land is left unnoticed or it's a blank area that no one has thought through. As we said some of these Muslim thinkers trace the burst of jahiliyyah to the last years of the reign of Uthman ibn Affan (radi Allahu anhu) and much of this depends on how you and I or how those who are qualified are going to define and explain the word jahiliyyah. Jahilliyah is obviously taken from the root jahila which means has no information about or is ignorant of. So if we were to blend in the language component of the word with the activist extension of the word- if we were to mesh these together we'd come out with a public mind that is absent minded concerning Allah's power and authority; that is when we have an individual's jahilliyah or we have a societies' jahilliyah. The Prophet said to one of the sahabis you are a person in which there are traces of jahilliyah. The Qur'an says

Is it the statecraft of jahiliyyah that they seek… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 53)

This is in reference to the social meaning of jahilliyah and it fluctuates between here to there. So if there is- and we do have, this is not a time to go into the particular names of Islamic thinkers and ideologues and philosophers and the rest who dealt with these issues with their minds, (something that is expected of us all not only of a class of people), when they come and say "we can trace the beginning of this jahilliyah to the last years of the reign of Uthman ibn Affan" there's a validity to that. That doesn't mean that all of the Muslims are Kafirs. No one is saying that; but once again when you have the fanatical psychology kick in there's no longer any fine lines between society and state. The whole issue becomes blurred and so right now in this unbecoming generalization we have a fringe group that is very well connected to finances and now to weapons that can go out there and rationalize the killing of the other Muslim who happens not to agree with their understanding of Islam. If we take a look at our understanding of history. We spoke a plenty about the ruling classes in those first centuries of Islam but let's look at the whole Islamic civilization when it interacted with the Greeks, with the Romans, with the Byzantines, with the Persians, with the Indians- there were interactions that was going on. There was a very strong translation effort to bring in the ideas of previous modernity's- some may call them civilizations, technological advances of those times; that was going on in a very serious way. Are we to call that a jahilliyah? If Muslims seek to obtain knowledge from those who may have it anywhere in the world are we going to call that jahilliyah? Some Muslims who do not think- that's what they exactly do; they call all of this jahilliyah. The fine arts like music itself, some people will say "music itself is a jahili or a kafir influence upon the Muslims." Here they don't even know what music is. They can't even tell you there's good music and there's bad music, there's uplifting music and there's depressing music, there are shades and there are levels of this music. But no, here we come again. When this type of mentality kicks in you can't communicate with it because when it closes its mind how are we going to communicate? So if we can't communicate with them it doesn't mean the whole world right now is closed (and) there's no one in the world to speak to?! There's a large world out there that we can speak to corner and to limit their type of fanaticism. We are going to make a transition here from this area to… Because if we speak about today if we mention one or five or however many rulers who are ruling today for reasons that are very complex some of our emotionalism will cloud our ability to think straight on this issue. Even when we're going to speak, (like we did last week), about the nature or the character of the Umawis who ruled way back a thousand and three hundred plus years ago still there is that aspect of some Muslims who take umbrage (and) who feel offended- "how dare you speak about these types of Sahabis or Khulafa'." We don't think that the rulers of Bani Umayyah or Bani Al Abbas are Khulafa' (i.e.) that they are successors of the Prophet in their responsibilities (and) in their ruling. That ended with Al Imam Ali or Al Imam Al Hassan (radi Allahu anhuma). Mu'awiyah was not a Khalifah. We're going to repeat this because still we don't have neither Sunnis nor Shi'is who have given this enough thought just to state the facts as they are and to say to us "Mu'awiyah is not a Khalifah." Both of them say "he is a Khalifah" for different purposes but both of them are wrong on this count! We're not saying that there's no exceptions here and there. There's always exceptions. We're looking at those who are considered mainstream Sunnis and those who are considered mainstream Shi'is. None of them, as far as yours truly is able to know and detect have come out and said without any ambiguity, without playing on words, without being diplomatic about it (and) to just state it as a fact- Mu'awiyah was not a Khalifah and the government that he was running was not an Islamic government in the full and wholesome and healthy sense of the word. So even when we open these pages of mainstream Islamic history- something that the status quo Masajid of today that are financed by the same types of people that have different names, the people that have power and the people that have money in today's Muslim crowd have different names but they have the same characters- so we think it's a little easier because of the span of time between us and the Umawis who were in the first years of ruling to deal with this subject especially knowing that we are taking this information not from those who are considered in history as being in the political opposition. These come from history and fiqhi and seerah and biography books that are from the Sunni mainstream. In Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal, written by Ahmad ibn Hambal- now who is going to say this person is not qualified to speak on this issue?! He mentions Mu'awiyah used to trade or make money out of selling khamr, that means intoxicants, whiskey, liquor, hard stuff, and the idol figurines of the Hindu or the Buddhists. This we're adding to what we said last week so that the Muslim mind can have a breather and not be suffocated by the absence of information or the lack of information that is deliberate in these types of Masajid from those types of pulpeteers on the Mimbar. There's a historian that is also considered very mainstream- his name is Hafiz Ibn Kathir. In his book Al Bidayah wa An Nihayah he says before Mu'awiyah the diyah across the board was the same whether the victim was a Muslim or a non-Muslim. Diyah is an Islamic word for blood money; if someone in an Islamic society kills someone else, one of the legal consequences of that is to pay the blood money from this person who did the act of killing or murder to the family (or) the first of kin of the person who was murdered or killed. When Mu'awiyah came, he changed that. He kept the diyah for a Muslim at the level it was at but if it was a non-Muslim that was killed in an Islamic society then the diyah that had to be paid for the non-Muslim was cut in half. This means a non-Muslims life was cheaper than a Muslim's life in such a society.

 

Then we have the spoils of war. We know that there are very clear ayaat in the Qur'an that speak about al khums, that speak about al anfal, that speak about the treasures or the assets that because of war have become an Islamic possession or territory. So when Mu'awiyah came, he did this by himself- he said whatever spoils of war that are gold or silver belong to me and the rest you can distribute according to the rules that you have. Where did that come from? How does a person do something like that. Once again, this is in the mainstream history books of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Asakir- two historians and two authors that all things considered are ranked as pro-Umawis and you find this information in them.

 

Then there is the issue of Ziyad. There is a person by the name of Ziyad. He is considered, before Mu'awiyah became the king of the Muslims, to be of an unknown father. No one knew who his father was. Then, when Mu'awiyah became the big ruler of the Islamic domain- he's the king now, he's the ultimate decision maker; he brought witnesses in front of the public (and) made it official that Ziyad is the son of Abi Sufyan, meaning Ziyad is Mu'awiyahs brother. Because no one knew this before, how did this come about? He told these witnesses, because they're in a court of law, they have to testify that Abu Sufyan… By the way, they used to call this Ziyad- because they knew his mother; they can't hide this because his mother gave birth to him; his mother's name was Sumayyah- Ziyad ibn Sumayyah, Ziyad the son of Sumayyah. So when he brought in these witnesses and they testified that Ziyad is the son of Abu Sufyan, now they know who his father was. His father committed adultery and he had this son so now he gave him a legitimacy and a status because Abu Sufyan and the Sufyanis and the Umawis were people who were running the government. Now he had not only a father- everyone knew who Abu Sufyan was- but he also now had a clan that was in power. The Prophet's hadith says, (this is the rough translation), am new born is attributed to the matrimony that he comes from, his mother and father obviously, and he who breeds an illegitimate son, meaning a child comes into being because of prostitution, his punishment is the stone. We don't want to go off on a tangent and bring in the issue of rajm and all of this, that's another issue. What we are trying to say here is that Mu'awiyah brought in Ziyad to fulfill a purpose, (i.e.) a governor in Southern Iraq. We have some people who don't read their history correctly. We're speaking here to those who come from a Sunni background. They say well, Rasulullah was married to Umm Habibah (radi Allahu anha)- that's the daughter of Abu Sufyan, the sister of Mu'awiyah. That's a fact. The Prophet was married to her but did anyone look further at our history and realize that Umm Habibah, Mu'awiyah's sister in the words of these historians took issue with him and placed herself at a distance from him. She would not want to face him- brother and sister- because of what he did and what he is doing. We're looking at people here in their official capacities- this Ziyad was given the governorship by king Mu'awiyah, (we have to drill it in), of Southern Iraq. So he went to the Masjid there and began by saying Ayyuha An Naas. People there knew who this guy was so they pelted some stones at him. He said OK- this is what you're doing. He ordered the police, (of course at that time they didn't call them police, but in our time today security forces), to surround the Masjid and to detain those, (depending on the history books), between thirty and eighty individuals who were in the Masjid. What did he do? You think what today's rulers do is something new? Because they threw (and) when you throw something you do it with your hand so he ordered that their hands be cut off. Where did that come from? This arbitrariness, this kangaroo court, this iron fisted ruler- where did you get all of this from? How come all of this information now… Because, you know, when it is brought to the attention of the public basically it's done by some Shi'i scholars but the problem with many of these Shi'is scholars is there is a mental block between them and the larger Muslim audience that they are speaking to. They carry a baggage with them that doesn't make it possible for facts like this to… They don't even quote for you Ibn Kathir said this, Ibn Asaakir said this, Ibn Athir said this, etc. etc. Mainstream! They don't say that but no one is listening. Their minds are shut off and because the people who are supposed to be listening have shut their mind off because of their traditionalism and the people who are speaking the truth are incarcerated in their own traditionalism no one gets anywhere! All of this news went to Mu'awiyah. If you think he's a person of justice he would have done something about this- he didn't do anything about this.

 

There is another incident in which this same Ziyad gets on the Mimbar and he wants to delay salat Adh Dhur until Asr time deliberately. Then a very popular person, Hujr ibn Adi (radi Allahu anhu), he is known. He one of these high ranking Sahabis said, (and it sounds like this in English), what do you think you are doing? Time doesn't wait for you. You can't do this. You can't play arbitrary timing with the salah. So with his popularity, he and twelve others were convicted of speaking truth to power and they were dragged to Mu'awiyah from Southern Iraq to Ash Shaam and when people were seeing this person leaving they were out like in today's world in something like public appearances- another word for demonstrations. They were chanting Hujr, Hujr, Hujr- meaning release him, release him, release him to Ziyad and to the rulers of that time. Even Aa'isha, (radi Allahu anha), Ummul Mu'mineen wrote to Mu'awiyah concerning this affair. So when they appear in front of Mu'awiyah, the security forces to speak to them. Of course, they're speaking the royal will here and they say we give you a choice you condemn Ali… Look at this. Just like we said in the last khutbah, this was an official obsession. People had to condemn that legitimate leader and ruler and Imam of the Muslims … and you have to distance yourself from him and then you have to curse him and if you do so we will let you go and if you don't we're going to execute you. Hujr and those who were with him said no we're not doing that. We are not going to be saying any of that kind of stuff that you want us to say. Hujr said I will not say anything that will be unsatisfactory to Allah. Then Hujr and seven others were executed. Before Hujr was executed he said I don't want anyone to take any strap away from me. Obviously he was strapped, he was tied. I don't want anyone to untie anything that was placed upon me and the blood that comes out of me I don't want anyone to wash it. I want to return the way I was killed on the day of judgement to take issue with Mu'awiyah. For those who think with sectarianism in their mind, there's no Sunni-Shi'i issue here. No one said Hujr is a Shi'i. no one said Mu'awiyah is a Sunni. Can we outgrow this and see the facts as they are?!

 

Then there is another opponent of Mu'awiyah- AbdurRahman ibn Hassaan. Look how they send opponents to each other. Once Ziyad sends them to Mu'awiyah, another time Mu'awiyah sends this person to Ziyad. Mu'awiyah says to Ziyad kill this person in the worst possible way. Is this a Khalifah? This is Khalifatu Rasulillah? Is this a leader who would say something like that?! Of course he had obliged. How did he kill him? He buried him alive. Read history. Don't be silly. Don't be sectarian. State the facts and the facts will speak for themselves. Then Aa'isha objects in the strongest words for what Mu'awiyah did to Hujr. He says to her with his diplomatic words, because the Prophet's wives are Ummahaat Al Mu'mineen, Mother- leave me alone. I will take issue with him on the day of resurrection. We said Ammaar ibn Yaser (radi Allahu anhu), a Sahabi, was killed by another Sahabi. Look brothers and sisters- if these words go to your emotions and do not go to your mind then you should not be listening to them. These words were meant for your mind and your mind only. This other Sahabi- his name was Abul Ghazi Al Juhani- was so particular, he wouldn't accept drinking water from a utensil that was made out of silver. Some people call that taqwa- that's not the right word for it. Then he has what it takes to kill a prominent person like Ammaar ibn Yaser.

 

Then Mu'awiyah sends a person by the name of Busr ibn Arta'a and says you take care of Al Hejaz and Yemen. So he goes to Al Yemen where Ubaidullah ibn Abbas was the ruler there on behalf of Ali and he goes to his house and he finds that Ubaidullah is not in the house but his wife and a five year old son and a son between six and seven years old were in the home. So what does he do? He asks where is Ubaidullah? They say we don't know where Ubaidullah is. So he threatens. What's the mother and her two sons going to do? So what he does? Remember Muslims- the rot did not set into our governments today; it can be traced al the way back to those times and these establishments don't want you to see this. These Masajid want to keep these issues away from your minds. They love to put these issues in your emotions and have you repeat this sorry history. So what does he do? He takes these two sons- the five and six year old- and he slaughters them in front of their mother. He cuts their heads off in front of their mother. These mainstream history books tell us the mother went crazy. She lost her mind. She was not the person she was after this. She couldn't think. She was not in control of her faculties and because we don't know these facts we have people who are not Muslims and we have cheap Muslims who want to be paid who know these issues and want to implant them in a public frenzy out there so that when we look at each other we see enemies and we don't see our ownselves. We're talking about today's Muslims! Then, Mu'awiyah sends this same person to Hamidan, a city that's in Persia and for the first time in history we have Muslim women who are saraya, Muslim women who are prisoners of war, i.e. not prisoners of war taken by Mushriks, these are prisoners of war taken by Muslims. Where did this come from? How did this happen? There's a fair minded Umawi that ruled, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (radi Allahu anhu). By all accounts this person wanted to set the record straight and get out of this monarchy that was institutionalized by king Mu'awiyah onwards and he said Ziyad in Iraq, Al Walid in Ash Shaam, Ibn Qurra in Egypt, Uthman ibn Hayyaan in Al Madinah, Khalid Al Qisri in Makkah- injustice is everywhere.

 

Then we have the Salafis today who come out with a book called Batalu Al Islam Al Adheem Al Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, A Great hero of Islam- Al Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. In these same history books, eighty thousand disintegrated corpses were found in the dungeons and in the prisons of Al Hajjaj. They rotted to death! Eighty thousand! A hundred and ten thousand were killed by this Hajjaj. He has a famous statement, (and for those of you who understand a standard of Arabic), I see heads that are ripe and its time to pick these heads, meaning its time to decapitate them. Then we have Salafis coming up with a book like this?! Batalu Al Islam Al Adheem Al Hajjaj ibn Yusuf?! Everyone heard of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (radi Allahu anhu). The Prophet himself says read (and) understand the Qur'an from ibn Ummi Abd, that's in reference to ibn Mas'ud. Ibn Mas'ud died years and years before Al Hajjaj was in power. Hajjaj says of him the head of the munafiqs. You know how you brand cows. You bring an iron that has a particular image on it and then you brand the skin and the leather or cows and cattle; Al Hajjaj ibn Yusuf did that to Malik ibn Anas  and Sahl ibn Saeed on their necks- branding them so people can't miss who they are. Now you tell us- does this history with these mainstream details not deserve our thinking, our minds? Put aside the fanaticism and the bigotry, the prejudice and the discrimination that is built into sectarianism which has become right now the rationalization for Muslims killing themselves.

 

Dear brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…

If we move our focus of attention from that earlier generation with the rulers behaving the way they did- only some of the information which has been brought to your attention and there's other chapters of this sordid history at the level of those who rule and when we point out rulers that doesn't necessarily apply to the people. We are here- do you agree with the way governments behave around here? Obviously not! You're going to condemn Muslims all over the world because of what criminals did when they occupied the seats of power. Let's have a little consciousness here, let's have more little understanding here; but it's easy to point blank generalize the crime and say we are all responsible for that. In toady's world we have the Saudi regime and its obvious that it withholds this type of information from the average Muslim out there because if this type of information was to settle in the public mind of the Muslim they will not survive. They are living on borrowed time because this ignorance that has occupied our Masajid and our societies is on its way out! There will be people who will have the moral courage to enunciate (and) express the truth without being sectarians, without being holier than thou and without being fanatics. Its just a matter of time and in the meantime we ask and we beg Allah to forgive us the sins of the generations of rulers who preceded us and to give us the certainty and the certitude of the facts that are stated from Him from on high and exemplified by the Prophet and that can be detected in today's world if we just decided to use are our God-given minds.

The Governance of Jahiliyyah

To continue to shed further light on those who have taken positions that are not within the parameters of our god-given Islam. There is a Qur'anic word and a Qur'anic concept- this word is al jahiliyyah. Allah says in an ayah in the Qur'an

Is it the governance of jahiliyyah that they seek and who could be better to govern that Allah? But only people of certainty are aware of this. (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 53)

Now, this Qur'anic word, al jahiliyyah, is mentioned other times in the Qur'an. This ayah speaks to Muslim womenfolk, (the noon here is for an niswah).

And do not expose your charms (or) your physique the way you use to expose them in al jahiliyyah. (Surah Al Ahzaab verse 33)

The word jahiliyyah is also a word used by Allah's Prophet, (and we'll be coming to that). So this word, al jahiliyyah, has made its presence known in the contemporary literature of the Islamic momentum of today's world. Everyone who is deeply involved in the conceptualization and in thinking through the affairs of today's world from time to time uses the word al jahiliyyah. To some people, al jahiliyyah means that time period prior to Islam. The time period before the Prophet and the Qur'an came to humanity is called al jahiliyyah. That, of course, is a partial explanation of the word; to others al jahiliyyah means a time period between two Prophets in which the previous message of Allah of the previous Prophet's message to his society withered away and the new message from Allah is not here yet. So that period of time, according to some people's definition and some scholars, is called a jahiliyyah. Yours truly here would define al jahiliyyah- which is taken from the word jahila i.e. ignorant of- if you want to catch the aroma of it from the Qur'an, it refers to a society's mental absence from acknowledging Allah's power and authority- that's called al jahiliyyah regardless of where it is located in time- prior to the revelation of time, in-between the periods separating one Prophet from another, in Islamic societies themselves, (if we call them Islamic societies), just like in today's world. The public mind is not concentrated, meaning it's not focusing in a thoughtful way on Allah's power and authority therefore we have a jahiliyyah. Could this definition apply to the time in which Allah's Prophet was among us, (i.e.) he was living, he was teaching, he was guiding (and) he was leading? Could we say that in this context we can find traces of jahiliyyah ? Yes we can. One instance that is in our history is that two individuals, one of them from the Muhajirin (radi Allahu anhum) and the other one from the Ansaar (radi Allahu anhum), got into a tense moment with each other. They began to argue and they began to conflict with each other. One of them said O Ansaar- come and help me. The other one said O Muhajirin- come to my help. Of course, nothing happened after that. There was no battle between Ansaar and Muhajirin- it was just this moment of asabiyyah that one expressed and the other counter expressed it. So when this whole matter was referred to Allah's Prophet he said do you express yourselves with a call of jahiliyyah? You see- the word al jahiliyyah comes up again. Then he goes on to say part with this jahiliyyah or leave it because…We want to be sharp in the wording because muntina means pungent. If you want to bring it down to everyday language part with this jahiliyyah because it stinks. The Prophet was speaking to Al Muhajirin and Ali Ansaar. People who were taken out of their asabiyyah past- they were Al Khazraj, they were Al Aws, they were Quraysh, they were Bani Haashim, they were Bani Umayyah and they were Bani this and Bani that. These were all asabiyaat i.e. that group solidarity right or wrong is called asabiyyah. The Prophet gave them an honorific and an honorary title, i.e. you are Al Muhajirin; whichever part of Makkah you come from or whichever asabiyyah you used to belong to, you part with that- now you've become Al Muhajirin. And you in Al Madinah; whatever your history was in prior Yathrib (and) whether you were Al Aws or Al Khazraj, now you're called Al Ansaar. But still, human nature in moments of weakness forgets about Allah's authority and power. Right now they're referring to their own clan and their own tribe and their race and their culture and their nationality and all of these that form these different asabiyaat. So in the weakness of human nature even these select committed Muslims i.e. Al Muhajirin and Al Ansaar who are mentioned in honorific terms in the Qur'an, an individual here and an individual there succumbed to this jahiliyyah. So even in the time of Allah's Prophet, Allah's Prophet said these are notions of jahiliyyah- divorce them; it has a bad odour to it.

 

OK- in the writings of contemporary scholars, (meaning in the past one-hundred years), we find that the word al jahiliyyah is used more often than others by two prominent figures in the Islamic Movement. One of them is Syed Abul A'la Al Maududi and the other one is Syed Qutb. Of course, other scholars used the word but these two dwelled on it. A close reading of Abul A'la Al Maududi, (he was the first to dwell on this word more than others; others would use other Qur'anic words and other words from the Prophet), but (with) this particular word, where did he detect the beginning of this expanding jahiliyyah? He said "it began in the latter years of the third successor of Allah's Prophet, Uthman ibn Affan (radi Allahu anhu). In his last years this jahiliyyah came on strong. It was so strong that it began to eclipse the hukm of Allah and the wilayah of Rasulillah and the committed Muslims." Then later, in the years that followed, (we're talking about the years 1950 to 1960's of the last century), Syed Qutb dwelled at length trying to explain and some Muslims misunderstood what he was trying to say and they still continue until this day taking these words to, (what you may call), their zealous extremes. He said "we have societies in Muslim countries and Muslim lands that have birth certificates that say that individuals here are Muslims and they express their shahadatayn and they perform their rituals very conscientiously but when you put the whole sum together, all of these individuals with their birth certificates and their rituals, you don't have an Islamic society. What we have is a jahiliyyah." Now, from here on we know we're going to have to preface what we're going to say with the following… All of the following information was taken from Sunni sources and Sunni references. It has nothing to do with Shi'ah or Al Khawarij or these other things that are sort of used to discredit what is being said. All of what you are going to hear are ahadith that came from Bukhari or Muslim or Abu Dawud or ibn Majah or these others who are "mainstream Sunnis."

 

To clear the air on this, we'd like to begin by saying because a lot of this extremism nowadays feeds off of the ignorance of this thirteen centuries plus of jahiliyyah. Some people think, (this is the way they were brought up), that if you honor Umar ibn Al Khattab (radi Allahu anhu) you have to automatically honor Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Who said so? Where did you get that from? Where did that come from? We don't care what background you come from- go back to your references, go back to your history books, go back to whatever- where do you find this connection? You can feel the sincerity of Umar ibn Khattab and you can feel the wickedness of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. What's wrong? You can't get your facts straight? You want to compare these two? In Umar's reign when Muslims suffered two years of drought, they were hungry; some Muslims began to steal because they wanted to feed their families. During that time period he was eating like an average person (or) less than an average person. He would dip bread into oil and eat that for weeks and months. He may have been a sharp person in confronting others but when it came to himself and his family he was as harsh to himself and his family as he was to the other Muslims. He wasn't discriminating. Compare that to a statement of Rasulillah when he wanted to see Muawiyah so he sent someone. He says go and call Muawiyah here. This is after Muawiyah became a Muslim. So the person goes to call Muawiyah (and) Muawiyah didn't come (or) didn't go to the Prophet. He told this person who the Prophet had sent, tell the Prophet that I'm eating meaning his stomach was more important to him than seeing the Prophet. When this go between (or) this person came back to the Prophet and said well he can't come and see you because he is eating. The Prophet said may Allah never cause his stomach to feel satisfied and that's who he was. All his life he would eat every two hours even when he was king over Muslims. You want to come and say that this person is like Umar? Where do you get your information from? Let us look at this beginning of jahiliyyah,(i.e.) when the Muslim public mind shifted from Allah's authority and power and then it became a tribal and a nationalistic issue. We don't want to go through the history of Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) and what happened there because this is a grey area in which people argue back and forth. We don't want to become argumentative. We want to take the information that we have. Read the books that you have. Read the information that you have. Read them! The mainstream books- it is known, every Muslim will tell you that the Prophet said Ammaar is going to be killed by the aggressive party (or) the offensive party. Ammaar calls them to Al Jannah and they call him to An Naar. This hadith is all over the place. OK- who killed Ammaar (radi Allahu anhu)? Read your history books. Go back. King Muawiyah was the head of al fi'aa al baaghiyah and when Muawiyah was told look, all of us know the Prophet's hadith that Ammaar is going to be killed by the offensive contingent and he was killed… He was the first person in Islam among Muslims who was beheaded. He was beheaded by a sahabi. This was an affair that was thought out by sahabis- some of them good some of some of them bad! Is someone going to come and say oh you say some sahabis were bad? That depends on your definition of sahabi.

 

This is a little off here but in a hadith after the battle of Uhud the Prophet of Allah comes to those Muslims who died shuhada' in Uhud. He says I bear witness on their behalf, I can vouch for them. They gave their lives, they died here in Uhud for Allah and His Prophet and Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) was standing next to him he said how about us?- meaning the rest who did not die at Uhud. They were fighting on the Prophet's side against the Mushrikeen of Makkah but they didn't die. The Prophet said to him I've been told that some of these who survived Uhud- I don't know what they are going to do in the future. The Prophet was told you don't know what they're going to do after you're gone. This person who killed Ammaar ibn Yaasir (and) beheaded him was the type of, (let's say), conscientious Muslim who would refuse to drink water from a cup that is made of silver. You judge here. So how did this jahiliyah begin to shift people's attention from Allah's power and authority to this tribalistic polarization in Arabia that Muawiyah was leading? Muawiyah said he and his group out there to take vengeance for the blood of Uthman- that was his excuse. He ran that down as a propaganda piece in Arabia. We have to see to it that the people who killed Uthman be brought to justice- its called qamis Uthman, (i.e.) the shirt of Uthman that was tainted with his blood- we have to take revenge for that. Do you know what that revenge meant? Seventy-thousand Muslims killed! What an ego here. (We're) looking at a person who has an ego here and then we have some Muslims who say "but no brother please- you know Muawiyah is mujtahid ma'jur. That was his ijtihad and he is going to be rewarded for that ijtihad even though the ijtihad is wrong." That's what they tell you. He is mujtahid ma'ajur? Wait a minute- let's get the full picture here, it doesn't begin here and it doesn't end here. Let's go on. Let's trace Muawiyah in his life who set in the re-focus of the Muslim mind from the power and the authority of Allah to that of state and armies and kings and princes and the rest of the mess that continued from that time up until this day! Because those people who can't see today's corruption it's because they can't see a corruption that's one thousand and four hundred years old. It's the same people. You watch- they do the same thing. When we're going to speak about Muawiyah think about today's kings and presidents.

 

Al Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) said I've been ordered to bear arms against an naaqifeen and al qaasiteen and al maarikeen. Three segments in this society now that has shifted its focus of thoughts and its focus of emotions away from Allah's authority and power and placed it in human beings. The first one is called an naaqifeen, those who went back on their pledge. You can put in this category Umm Al Mu'mineen Aa'isha, Az Zubayr and Talha (radi Allahu anhum). These were Mujtahids. They were wrong. Whether they will carry the day on the day of judgment is Allah's affair- it's not our affair and this is not an area to bad mouth people. So if they, and they did participate in the battle of Siffin and Ali was there to set the record straight and to try the best he could to place the Muslim public mind back where it belonged, (i.e.) on Allah's authority and power. Then there is al qaasiteen. This is Muawiyah and his tribalistic, asabi coalition of clans and families and dynasties in Arabia. Then al marikeen, this is in reference of those who are called in Islamic history Al Khawarij, those who broke with the Imam who were with him all the way up until at tahkeem and then when there was this arbitration they turned around and then they said now is our time to fight you. The Prophet of Allah says, (also in a hadith that you'll find all over the place, a hadith in the sihah in the mainstream literature), if a person or anyone comes and wants to divide you when you are united, in harmony with a leader (or) a leadership, then you strike his neck, that's another way of saying you get rid of him, you finish him off, you execute him whoever he is. You go back to in these books that are selectively quoted for you in the manabir of today's contemporary Muawiyah dynasty in Arabia. You read. Which territories were Ali's territories in which he had the loyalty and the jurisdiction of peoples? Everywhere except Bilad Ash Shaam- that's where Muawiyah had managed to group and regroup his types. So this person came when the Muslims were all in agreement to the Imamah, the leadership (and) to the Khilafah of Ali and he wants to break this agreement. So what's his penalty according to this hadith from Allah's Prophet? You strike life out of him at the neck level whomever he is. Then some people have difficulty with Muawiyah?! You can even see this type (if you) go to Minhaj As Sunnah An Nabawiyyah, a book by ibn Taymiyyah; refer to that on this particular issue. See what you find there. What happened? You want to place this hadith in the context that serves the tribal or national or nationalistic interests but this hadith is excluded from this first chapter of jahiliyah in Islamic history?! If it applies, it applies everywhere to anyone.

 

Then we follow, (in your books, go back to these history books; unfortunately many of them are in Arabic, but however way you can, go to an Arabic speaking person, whatever), and when finally Muawiyah became the king of the Muslims, (we know this is a hard expression for people to swallow and to digest but that's the fact of life), he's not a Khalifah and he is not an Imam in the Shar'i definition of these words. He is a king, he is a malik and still we don't have Muslims (with) whatever hemisphere of the brain they are activating that can come out and say Muawiyah was a king. Sunnis don't want to say it; Shi'is don't want to say it! Let's think straight. Let's take these facts and collect them (and) see what we have. So now he's become the number one ruler. Ali is gone. He's no longer alive. There were still some people who were implicated in the killing of Uthman. They were still around. He didn't pursue them?! If he was true to what he originally said, I'm going to pursue those who killed Uthman, when Ali met Allah and left this life some of these individuals who came there to assassinate Uthman were still alive; Muawiyah didn't pursue them, he didn't bring them to court, he did say I'm going to hold you responsible for killing Uthman because it was all over. When Ali was gone it's all over for him. He's no longer interested in qamis Uthman, in the killers of Uthman, in the assassins of Uthman. He no longer was interested. This person is out there for his power not Allah's power, his authority not Allah's authority.

 

You go to sahih Muslim- you see a hadith the affection you have for Al Ansaar and the affection you have for Ali is indicative of your iman. This doesn't come from a Shi'ah book, it doesn't come from a minority book, it doesn't come from a maverick scholar- it comes from mainstream ahadith. Also in sahih Muslim, the meaning of this hadith is the Prophet said concerning Ali, only a committed Muslim would adore him and only a Munafiq would be adverse to him or against him; only a Munafiq will hate him. OK- hadith sahih Muslim. How does Muawiyah figure in to this? Where is Muawiyah in all of this? Did he have a close relationship with Ali? Did he like Ali? This Muawiyah he was the one who began an evil sunnah; sunnah here is not the Shar'i word, it's the linguistic word. He institutionalized a procedure that was evil and that was cursing (and) using foul language against Ali. This Muawiyah himself used to do that in his life how does that fit? You want to say this is a Sahabi?! This is, you know, someone who is good?! Look- Iblis himself was in the company of Angels. Was there something good about him? He was in the company of Angels- maybe something good about him? Ash Shaytaan himself is not one hundred percent evil but the effectiveness of Ash Shaytaan is that him mixes what is evil with what is virtuous but he makes the evil overcome the virtuous- that's Shaytaan. So from there Muawiyah makes an official policy of the state of this new structure jahiliyyah to condemn the Imam from the Mimbar and that continued for many years- fifty (or) sixty years more until Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (radi Allahu anhu) came and said what's this? Let's change this. Take this away. This is nonsense and he replaced this with the ayah from Surah An Nahl which many khateebs end their khutbahs with.

… Allah requires justice… (Surah An Nahl verse 90)

Every time you hear this ayah remember that when our jahiliyyah began at the time of Muawiyah the Imams on the mimbars used to condemn Ali, Hassan (and) Hussein (radi Allahu anhum) from the Manabir in the Masajid in the Muslim world at that time. Tell us there was no jahiliyyah?! Tell us something didn't go wrong?

 

(At) one time Muawiyah encountered Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu), one of the high ranking companions of the Prophet and Muawiyah asks Sa'ad what is it with you (or) what is it in you that forbids you from condemning Aba Turab. Aba Turab is like the nickname of Ali so Muawiyah is asking Sa'ad what's wrong with you? You can't come out and express condemnation of Aba Turab. Sa'ad answers and he said but I've heard the Prophet of Allah say three things about Ali which if he had only said one of those things about me I would have considered myself to be the luckiest person in the world, a person who has everything they would want.

 

In sunan ibn Majah- this is another mainstream hadith in one of the six books of as sihah in Sunni hadith literature. This hadith in the hadith literature says sah'hahahu which means another scholar took a look at the same hadith and said "this hadith is sahih." Now who's this other scholar? For those of you who are Salafis out there, (because we know this khutbah goes out and more than you are listening to it), Albaani your musah'hih. The hadith that we are going to quote in this context- Muawiyah came to Al Madinah and he came to a place where someone was mentioning Ali. He heard this (and) Muawiyah couldn't control himself. The person was jaded and then he began his foul language, his dirty words (and) his curse words against Ali. Ali was gone, he was dead. He wasn't around. We mean this type of grudge (and) this type of internal psychological vengeance that dwells in this person who became the first king whose effects are still being felt in Islamic circles today- what type of character is this? Remember for those of you who need a little tick to your memory- this is the son in law of the Prophet, he's the cousin of the Prophet, he is the husband of Fatima Az Zahra (radi Allahu anha), he is the father of Al Imamayn- Hassan and Hussein. Think about it for a moment- what's with this king who's out on a mission in life to even mention a person who has passed away with the types of words that he uses?! This is the Imam that the Prophet said concerning him, (there's two narrations here, one of them in Bukhari and Muslim), I would give the banner tomorrow to a person who loves Allah and His Prophet and is loved by Allah and His Prophet and then ibn Majah's narration is today I'm going to give it to him. Listen to what Allah's Prophet is saying about Ali and listen to what Muawiyah is saying- that's all it takes. Ali became a Muslim when he was still a child. He never bowed down to an idol, he never partook of any intoxicants and let us look at Muawiyah. You want a little comparison?

 

We go to Musnad Al Imam Ahmad and the line of narratives is what is called as sahih. All the characters who are narrating this hadith are beyond doubt. From Abdillah ibn Burayda, what did Abdillah say? Abdillah and his father went to Muawiyah's palace and they were told to sit down on luxurious mats and seats. They brought us all this food and then they brought us these drinks. Sharaab here means alcoholic beverages. Then this narrator Abdillahi ibn Burayda says Muawiyah drank of that khamar and then he came and he wanted to give my father a glass of that intoxicant. Then my father said I've never tasted this stuff, (we're bringing up the meaning as it is in its original and as it would equate in English); I've never tasted that stuff since Rasulillah said it is haraam.

 

Abu Dawud, another mainstream sahih book of hadiths and also here sah'hahahu Albaani; once again, for those who call themselves Salafis out there who are quick to use foul language themselves against upright Muslims and then they want to protect a character like Muawiyah. So what does Abu Dawud tell us here? There is a person by the name of Al Miqdam ibn Ma'diqar (radi Allahu anhu) who was in the company of two others. He is a well know figure. The other person with him was from the tribe of Asad and the other one's name was Umar ibn Al Aswad so they go to Muawiyah. Muawiyah says to Al Miqdan- this was at the time when the Hassan had passed away. So Muawiyah is speaking to Al Miqdam and telling him, Al Hassan died? Remember, Al Hassan was the one to save thousands of lives. This was after Siffin, before the internal strife among the Muslims- as if he could see the future coming. So he relinquished but with a condition that after a time period Al Hassan would resume the leadership of the Muslims. So what happened here? He got poisoned. We are told in these history books that his wife poisoned him. Now if we were to stop there you could say even though there is also a statement referenced to Muawiyah that says Allah has troops whose constituency is honey; that's in reference to the poison that was placed in Al Hassan's food after which he did not survive. If it stopped here you'd say, (some people argue history back and forth), if it was another person who was poisoned obviously Al Hassan was perceived by Muawiyah as a threat. There is another person by the name of Abdurrahman ibn Khalid ibn Walid, the son of Khalid ibn Al Walid. He was also perceived as a threat by Muawiyah (and) he was also poisoned. Malik Al Ashtar was also perceived as a threat by Muawiyah (and) he was also poisoned. Now wait a minute. What's going on here? You tell the Muslim mind- is this coincidental, (i.e.), these things happening like this? All of a sudden this sequence of poisoning of individuals who were considered to be a threat to Muawiyah? Now we have for the first time in Islamic history assassination by poison. So when Miqdam ibn Ma'diqar heard that Al Hassan passed away he said inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'um. Muawiyah says why do you say that? Do you see this as a musibah? Do you think this is a calamity that has befallen us? In other words, you should be happy that this thing has happened and he passed away. Then Al Miqdam says to him how can I not see it as a calamity and I saw Rasulullah in his chamber (or) in his room saying, (the meanings is more or less like this), Al Hassan is more like me and Al Hussein is more like Ali. I heard him say that, Miqdan is telling Muawiyah. You'd think a person who'd have some type of taqwa in him (and) after all of this- these things would seep into Muawiyah (and) they'd get to him and one day they'd wake up and say "wait a minute here I did something awfully wrong. This is terrible." But no- he keeps on going. Then Muawiyah turns to Al Asdi, the other person. Remember, Miqdam had two others with him. He turns to the other from Bani Asd and he says what do you think? Hassan passed away- what's your ideas on this? He said an amber (or) a piece of stoked fire, (you know you'd have in a fire place the amber), has been put out meaning right now the possibilities of a wildfire catching up among the Muslims is gone. A Munafiq- these words indicate who he is. Then Al Miqdam says to Muawiyah I want you to speak as if it was to Allah. Have you not heard Rasulullah forbidding us to wear gold and to wear silk and to sit on the leather or the skin of wild animals? By Allah I see all of this right now happening in front of you right here in your own room, in your own palace. Abu Dharr saw this corruption happening in the court of Muawiyah, in the lands that were ruled by Muawiyah and he asked Muawiyah where did you get all of this from? Wealth, money, lavish lifestyle, israaf, tafdeed- where did all this come from? Abu Dharr kept on pushing this line against Muawiyah until Muawiyah got sick and tired of him. Leave! Get out of here. He sends him back to Uthman in Arabia and we know the rest of the story. Ibn Asakir (and) Ibn Kathir- for those of you who are not familiar with Islamic history ibn Asakir and ibn Kathir are considered to be pro-Umawis not like ibn Jarir At Tabari who they say he has Shi'i sympathies. No one says this about ibn Kathir (and) ibn Asakir. What do they tell us about Muawiyah? Ubadah ibn As Samit (radi Allahu anhu), another one of these figures around the Prophet from the time of the Prophet comes to Muawiyah and tells him what's wrong? Why are you transacting in riba', usury? Riba' al fadal a particular type of usury. Muawiyah says I didn't see anything wrong in that. What are you talking about? Ubadah said there is a hadith, this is the hadith; listen to the hadith. Muawiyah said no, I don't recognize the hadith.

 

Al Imam Malik- some people say "Imam Malik is a Khaariji, is a Shi'i, is a peripheral Muslim." Everyone knows who Imam Malik is. He cited Aba Darda (radi Allahu anhu), another one of these Sahabis, who left Muawiyah's jurisdiction where Muawiyah has direct rule because of this riba' issue. Tell us- after you know some of this, this is only some of the facts that come out about this. (Sorry. We've taken so long. We're going to have to terminate at this point. We didn't realize my time went way over.)