al- Azhab “the Confederates”

Salaams my brothers 

*Jumaa Mubarak* 

Within each and every political entity, it is the matter of succession or continuation, that is always most pressing. 

As we draw near to the December elections it is worthwhile to recall that Islam was no different. 

As Brother Adil Salahi made clear in a recent Friday Khutbah the first emigration to Abyssinia was made for that very reason. To show very early on that Islam has relevance beyond Arabia, and to ensure that it’s mission to humanity would never be lost. 

The personality of the Messenger (saw) has always been central to any true understanding of Islam, and yet the idea of a direct succession GOD dispatched with force when He reminded of a true statement of a future fact: 

"Muhammad (SAW) is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever AllAware of everything". (33:40). 

Whilst Al-Azhab- the Confederates- came down as a direct result of the controversy concerning the annulled marriage of Zayd bin Harithah (as), it's relevance to the political circumstances following the Prophet (saw) leaving us should not be doubted. 

To realise this you just need to read and contemplate it, how it first starts strongly with an address to the Messenger, and then tells the companions that they will be held to account, and then gives clear instructions to the wives of the Messenger (saw). 

It is there that they first gain the title “Mothers of the Believers”, and ...

V32

“O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn (for you); and even then speak a good word.”

Their role following on from the passing of the Messenger (saw) took a decidedly different turn, where they at once became instructors in the religion, and proofs of his truth, and took on prominent roles in the public life of the Muslims. 

But they did not and could not succeed him in political authority. 

So if direct succession had been ruled out, then what sole injunction lay within the body of Islam to instruct us in political continuation and that all necessary stability?

During the Prophetic era, Muhammad (saw) instructed us, through his very real example, in the ways of open consultation. (Shuraa’)

In the absence of any direct instruction to the contrary he (saw) left the bedrock of ALL political deliberation to be confirmed as being solely mutual consultation. 

Furthermore we know that this was not an oversight of his (saw), and also not an oversight within the religion, because we know of his preference. That he (saw) preferred Abu Bakr (as) cannot be doubted, and that he did not confirm him in that, cannot also be doubted. 

“Let all doors (to the Mosque) be closed except that of Abu Bakr (as)”

Once again, and even that is after his (saw) leaving us, did he teach us that the truest way within political deliberations would always be mutual and open consultation. 

That Abu Bakr (ra) directly appointed Umar (ra) following the uncertainty of the Ridaa wars and an expected opening of two fronts both from Rome and Persia. 

That Umar (ra) appointed a committee of the remaining Ashara Mubashara (the blessed ten that had been promised Heaven within their lifetimes). 

All of these methods could be taken to be part of the Sunnah of our Messenger (saw), but his greatest legacy in that task was how he left the people to confirm Abu Bakr (ra) after he had passed. 

This stands in open contrast with those who would have religious leaders as being confirmed as the leaders of his nation. For he told us that the inheritors from the Prophets are the learned, but not necessarily in political ascendency but in knowledge. 

Marcus Areulius, Caesar, advocated the rule of Philosopher Kings. 

But our Messenger(saw) when approached and asked “who is your leader?” Gave us the most splendid indication of who we should choose, he replied “the one who best helps the people”. 

The first and primary way of helping people is in regards to our relationship with God. That we must all fulfil HIS due.  And simply put that is to establish the five and make them easy. 

Then to exercise justice, and equality, amongst all. Then to bring ease to us in our worldly affairs. Then to set our National and Political goals and investments so that we might as a Nation develop and learn, to buttress against future uncertainty. 

These are the politics of the Muslims. And at Hudabiyya we learnt that in these things we are pragmatists. And if one cannot be had, then that should not, and cannot, rule out our striving for the others. 

The practise of Democracy here is nothing but joining the conversation, and making our views known. It is to speak to support those who are more just, against those who are unjust. To stand as one from the middling Nation, calling to a straight way. 

What I have said here is my opinion. If it is wrong then that wrong belongs to me. 

Knowledge is sought through study and contemplation, not via lectures, nor speeches, nor this above. 

Indeed al-Ahzab is full of contemplation and can only be read in the full light of Seerah. The details of its revelation cannot be found in any Sahih Hadith, and the seeker of knowledge needs to refer to Seerah. 

In it we find:

- the Salawat on the Messenger 

- The verse that relate that he (saw) is the best example to follow 

- That he is closer to the believers than their very own selves 

- That it is not fitting for a believer to hold another opinion when he (saw) has already decided a matter. 

- Where Khaybar is mentioned. 

- And the verses above. 

Contemplate well 🙏

the Shariah- Watering the Soul?

Friday 8th November 

Salaams brothers. 

Jumaa Mubarak. 

Nearly every book on the Shariah lauds the Sahabas (the Companions of the Messenger (saw)) for being quite unlike any other community of believers before them. 

Part of their great attributes were their selfless givings. Another relevant, and no less great, attribute of theirs was that they did not ask of the Messenger (saw) over many questions. They were content with whatever they were given. 

And it is those two attributes that singled them out, above and beyond the other Nations that preceded them. 

However, part of their ancestors attributes is that we constantly want to know what is halal, recommended, advisable, to be abstained from, regretted and lastly punishable. 

The mantra that I have led, since when I cannot remember, is that the two are not the same: religious obligations and worldly concerns. 

That in regards to religious obligations, and ceremonies having religious overtones, that they have been made clear and any addition to that is a deviation from what has been sent down and is a going astray (bidaa’ - religious innovation). 

But that in regards to Worldly matters, that what has been forbidden had been made clear and anything else is permissible.

But what most of my peers hold is markedly opposite, that innovations in Worldly matters should first be deferred to a Shariah based position. That in effect all matters require religious edicts for clarification.

Interestingly this was not the attitude of the Sahaba (as). 

Indeed after freeing and conquering Sham from Caesar the Sahabahs did not ask if it was permissible to use the same coinage. They did not deliberate on whether the means of exchange should mirror its true worth, as in the gold standard. 

Instead they maintained the civil administration within the towns, in a similar manner to the Prophet (saw) maintaining the key holder's family's right to the Kaba at the conquest of Mecca.

This is not to say that a currency worth it's weight is not of merit, but that such deliberations should be about economy and not be based upon religious grounds. 

Nor does it say that our beloved Prophet, Muhammad (saw), had nothing to contribute on the matter. 

The Sahabahs appreciated the easiest means of ensuring a smooth transition towards meaningful change. That what separates us from them, in this World, is not what we do, nor even how we do it, but the depth of meaning that affects us. When we do, the Shukr that GOD gave us the ability and knowledge to do, and when we err or forgot, the Istighfar that brings us home again.

Indeed it could be argued that the whole of religion lends accessibility to meaning. That in the removal of our short-term worldview from the scope of our thought the meaning of our lives intensifies. 

That what each of us do, or do not do, has ramifications beyond our limited lives. 

And yet the vast majority of our book concerns itself with our daily lives, and that in order to create a justly balanced society so that our psychology is freed from the oppression of wrong. 

Such an understanding also sheds light on the Sunnah. That part of it is as a way of using appropriate words to evoke meaning within us. And the other part is to prescribe in order that the "what" of deliberation is sorted, leaving ourselves more to contemplate the "whys". 

So we know what to say when a person passes on, or an ill eventuality befalls us, so that we are free to focus on the meaning contained within it: “Surely to God we belong, and to Him is our return”. 

The Shariah, or even the Sunnah, is there really to water our souls. 

But when we get bogged down in the semantics of law, of what is reprehensible and what is recommended, it falls short of its noble meaning. And becomes just another set of rules that people differ over. 

We should recall that the Shariah is literally the path that leads to the watering place. 

A place where people gather together and partake from the same unitary source. That quenches our common thirst. 

A place full of barakah, meaning and understanding. 

So focus my bothers, whilst you learn about the what to dos and when to do them, on the meaning. 

For the means is but a way to the ends, and the ends should be the purification and embellishment of our souls. 

What I have said here is my opinion. If it is wrong then that wrong belongs to me. 

Knowledge is sought through study and contemplation, not via lectures, nor speeches, nor this above.