A picture which came across after making a Google image search using the keywords "Muhammad Nafs Zakiya". It was in an Italian website. If I surmise correctly, it is the Iranian embassy in Rome...
Assalamualaikum. Peace be upon you. While in the process of writing my "Berpetualang ke Aceh" series of Malay novels 4 years ago, at the same time searching for my roots, I was inadvertantly directed to the name Muhammad Nafs as Zakiya. For information, this man was instrumental in bringing down the Umaiyad Chaliphate. His real name is Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan Al-Muthanna bin Saidina Hassan, the eldest granchild of Prophet Muhammad SAW.
Today, again I felt like making a search on his name. Thus I found this information in a site and decided for posterity to copy and paste it here ya... Hmm... Perhaps I should highlight a few pertinent points a long the way. Do have a look! :]
---------------------------
Nafs-az-Zakiyah
Oct 27 2007, 08:09 PM
Here is a summary on Imam Nafs-Az-Zakiyah by Allama Syed Al Ninowy (db)
Imam Muhammad al Nafs Az Zakiyah
Name: Muhammad bin Abdullah
Titles: Abdul Qasim, Al Mahdi, Nafs-az-Zakiyah
Linage: Imam Nafs-Zakiyah is the son of Abdullah ibn Hassan ibn Hassan bin Ali .
Characteristics and Physical appearance. In terms of physical appearance and motivation he resembled his great grand uncle Hazrat Hamza ibn Abdul Mutalib . During Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah's time the Abbasids ruled the Islamic world. These rulers were tyrants who took power by the sword, and so their rule was considered to be illegitimate. Therefore, Imam Nafs-Az-Zakiyah decided to oppose this illegitimate form of government.
Among his prominent supporters were Imam Jafar As-Sadiq , his two sons Musa and Abdullah, Imam Zaid's bin Ali's sons Hussain and Isa and many others. According Isfahani book Maqatil al-Talibiyyin he details on Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah revolts and emphasizes on Imam Jafar as Sadiq allowing his two sons Abdullah and Musa, to join the revolt along with other alids.
In 145 AH Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah, he took out the Zhuliqar (double sword) of his great grandfather Imam Ali , and declared a war against the Abbasid ruler Mansoor. However, just like previous two Karbala events in which Imam Hussain and Imam Zaid fought, Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah was left with a fewer supporters of 313 troops, and as a result he was overpowered by opposing side.
In his life time Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah wrote a few books, but he told his family if he dies they have to burn his books because it contained a lot of spiritual secrets. He warned them that if the Abbasids got a hold of those books they would have learned many spiritual secrets and known about the future events.
His Martyrdom
Before his martyrdom he gave his family two signs to recognize either if he will either become victorious or be a martyr. According to narrations Imam Nafs-Az-Zakiyah is reported to have said:- Notice when goes away when it sets and sky starts raining then know that I have been martyred. If the sun has set and the sky has not rained then know that I have been victorious (Isfahani) ...Unfortunately, the first sign came true, and Imam Nafs-az-Zakiyah achieved martyrdom.
Oct 27 2007, 08:25 PM
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan Musanna bin Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib, who is known in Islamic history as Nafs az-Zakiyya, was one of the heroes of Ahl al-Bayt and a contemporary of Hazrat Jaafar al-Sadiq (Radhi Allaho Anho) who had revolted against Abbasids in 145 A.H. He established his caliphate in Medina al-Munawwara and the surrounding areas.
Isa bin Moosa, the Abbasid general, was sent from Baghdad with a strong force to crush his rebellion. When the Medinans saw the strong force, many tribes left him one by one until he was left with only 313 followers. Nafs Al-Zakiyya was martyred at a place called Ahjar-uz-Zayt (a place which is not part of the Masjid an-Nabawi ash-Sharif). His Mazar used to be near the old SAPTCO Bus Stand. (The bus stand had also been demolished since a year).
His Mazar was demolished by the Wahhabi militants in 1925. There is a Hadith Sharif narrated by Hazrat Abu Zar Al-Ghifari (Radhi Allaho Anho) wherein the Messenger of Allah had said: “How will you feel when one of my sons will be butchered near Ahjar az-Zayt?” – which indicated the prophecy of Rasool Allah about his martyrdom.
Nafs Az-Zakiyyah was the great grand-uncle of Sayyaduna Ghaus-e-Azam (Sultanul Awliya Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani) from his father’s side. It is also worth mentioning that Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa (Radhi Allaho Anho) and Hazrat Imam Malik (Radhi Allaho Anho) had extended their support to him. Imam Abu Hanifa had provided him funds to the amount of 20,000 Dinars – a step that earned him the wrath of the Abbasids.
Behind the punishment of both these Imams at the hands of the Abbasids, was that both of them had provided moral and material support to Nafs az-Zakiyya. More details can be found in Ibn Atheer’s Al-Kamil Fit-Tareekh and Abn Katheer’s Al-Badaya wan-Nahayah.
Oct 27 2007, 08:28 PM
Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem. Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad, his Noble Companions and Family. Brothers and Sisters, Muslims whose relationship with Allah is one of responsibilities and duties and one of tasks and obligations....audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/khutbassermons.htm?archived=1&page=6 (2-24-2006)
CONSOLIDATING THE MUSLIM RANK AND FILE
PART 23: ISLAMIC OPPOSITION OF AL-NAFS AZ-ZAKIYA (A)
We will continue with Allah's help to uncover areas of ignorance before these areas of ignorance become justification for our own undoing. You can see what is happening today, you can see what has happened in the past couple of days…how this issue of Sunnis and Shi'is has become the favorite instrument of division by those who don't know better and by those who will use anything at their disposal to polarize, divide and to instigate instability and bloodshed amongst the Muslims.
These past months have been an attempt to diffuse the dynamite that we have contributed to by not bringing these issues to the fore. If we can go back and untangle the information that we have in our possession, then we will have spared ourselves what we see happening in front of our own eyes- which translates into victimization, losses, displacement, casualties and general warfare.
We said previously, and we continue to say that Islamic Opposition to illegitimate rulers is an integral part of ourbeing. It's just our lack of information that we don't understand that our normal position in life is to oppose all types of authorities and governments that institutionalize injustice, usurp power and inflict the results upon the average person- you and me and the rest of us in life.
We saw how after the Imamah and Khilafah of Ali ibn Abi Talib (radi Allahu anhu), Muawiya came and he stole power. He didn't come and gain the majority opinion of the Muslims that he should become the ruler- that's not the way he operated. The way he operated was- he imposed himself by the force of arms upon a reluctant Muslim public the same way we have kings and presidents imposing themselves on a disagreeing Muslim public today- nothing much has changed.
We went through the details, and we had to go through the details of Islamic Opposition to rulers who are tyrants, authoritarians, autocrats and monarchs and to add to that sequence, we will take another effort of opposition in the history that we should be identifying with, provided that we have the right information, because much of this information that comes from history books is cooked to serve certain traditions or interests. We have nothing to do with that, we try to take this information as objectively and positively as possible.
The tragedy that happened in Karbala had its fallout on the Muslim public. The Muslim public were aware that a few people, 70 odd committed Muslims with Al-Imam Al-Husein (radi Allahu anhu), stood against a military killing machine and in the calculations of the material and physical world, that conflict resulted in the pulverization of the committed Muslims. This was an epic tragedy that made people react in different ways. We're looking at the Muslim public- there were some people who sought refuge or wanted to escape from all of this by adopting certain methods of tasawwuf and zuhd. This was an escapist way out from facing our own responsibilities and telling our ownselves that illegitimate, unjust, oppressive and tyrannical rulers and governments have to go, and we have to contribute to that process.
Some people found in a peculiar type of zuhd or tasawwuf out of this. In this way, they relieved themselves of the responsibilities of mobilizing against illegitimate governments and authorities. Some other people joined a trend in Islamic society that gave legitimacy to the rulers.
This trend, at the time, was called the Murjiah. They simply said that it is Gods will that we are where we are and the rulers are where they are and we can't fight Gods will. This officially sponsored public trend or sentiment deflected criticism and analysis of what these rulers by force were doing. Another trend that developed especially in the aftermath of Karbala was a quietist trend. People were aware that the Bani Umayyah kings were illegitimate, but as far as revolt, struggle and active sacrifices goes, they were not going to do anything about it.
Then, and this is all societies, there are those types of people who begin to satisfy their worldly cravings, they lead a loose life, they go into the area of sin to relieve themselves from all of this pressure. This was basically the general attitude or sentiment among the Muslims in the months and the years that followed the sad event of Karbala.
One of the trends that is to be found in all of this is referred to as the Mu'tazilah or they are called by another name, Ahl Al-Adl wa At-Tauheed, the folks of Justice and Tawheed. This trend began in one of the Masaajid. If we can recall correctly, it was in Al-Basrah when they had halaqaat, study groups. Naturally and normally, you would find in the Masaajid study groups- a scholar would present his ideas and his scholarly work to those who felt comfortable with his way of thinking, and there were plenty of these scholars.
In one of these study groups, one of those students who was in the study group abandoned it- I'tazala- he said "I'm no longer going to fit into this study group", because he had taken some issues with the mentor in the group. From here on, a trend and a movement began that emphasized the rational approach to the Qur'an and the Prophet (sallahu aliahi wa sallam). This rational approach was to become a numerically significant movement in Islamic society. The person to whom this trend is attributed is called Waasal ibn Ata. He began this rational assimilation of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Previously, we said that the movement of Imam Zaid (radi Allahu anhu) was almost in conformity with this trend of I'tizaal. To further elaborate on that, remember- we're speaking of the years after Karbala and the official oppression by the state against its Islamic opponents, the founder of this movement, Waasal ibn Ata, went to Al-Medinah, and he has a meeting in the Masjid, again- this is how important and critical the Masaajid were, these were the hubs of the Muslim minds and sentiments.
In the Masjid, there were many supporters of the previous opposition trends who came to the Masjid. At that time, the opposition to the political opposition that occurred with the onset of Umawi rule was represented by what is known as Al-Khawaarij, and we touched on this; then there was the opposition that was represented by Ahl Al-Bayt, Husein and Zaid and others, and we touched on this; then there was this opposition of the Mu'tazilah, whom we are speaking about now. Their opposition was that even though the Muslims have suffered an emotional and tragic setback due to the consequences and results of Karbala, but active revolutionary opposition to the Umawis should continue, but not the way the Khawaarij were behaving. The Khawaarij were saying "that anyone who disagreed with them is a kaafir". Al-Mu'tazilah said "that is wrong". Al-Khawaarij said that "the Umawis and at least some of the Ahl-Bayt are kaafirs", Al-Mu'tazilah were saying "that is wrong… opposition has to be principled, organized."
In this meeting in the Masjid in Al-Medinah, there were many supporters of Ahl Al-Bayt, and in this meeting what happened was a split within the supporters of Ahl Al-Bayt. Some of them preferred to stay more or less passive in their opposition to the Umawi rulers, but as a consequence of this meeting, their were also people from within the ranks of Ahl Al-Bayt who were convinced that there should be revolutionary opposition to the Umawis.
In this conclave or meeting in the Masjid, we had people like Zaid, his relatives and extended family, and as a consequence of this meeting was there was an exchange of words between Waasal ibn Ata and Al-Imam Jaafar As-Sadiq (radi Allahu anhu), concerning whether opposition should go into a revolutionary mode as Waasal ibn Ata was saying or whether it should stay less than a revolutionary mode as Jaafar was saying. This was an obvious split that took place early on within the "cadre", if the word can be used, of Ahl Al-Bayt.
We covered the revolt of Zaid and how it ended. We mentioned how the rulers of the time used to parade the bodies of their victims- these Muslim, legitimate opponents of illegitimate governance. Zaids head was cut off and his body was put on a cross for years. We read about the horrors that are taking place in Iraq- this is nothing new, we can go back and re-visualize these horrors when they were taking place during that time. Then, the son of Zaid, Imam Yahya (radi Allahu anhu) also carried arms and fought against Al-Waleed ibn Yazid, the successor Umawi ruler to Hishaam ibn Abdul Malik; also, what happened was a military, material defeat of these Islamic free spirits with a revolutionary soul; and obviously you have a Muslim public, just like we have a Muslim opposition in todays world, and you can see how the Muslim public acts or interacts with these events.
In the midst of all of this, there was yet another personality who would emerge. This persons' name is Muhammed ibn Abdullah ibn Al-Hassan ibn Al-Husein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (radi Allahu anhu). He is known by a title in Islamic history, he is referred to as An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah.
An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah had participated in the revolt of Zaid, he was one of the young persons who attended that initial meeting in the Masjid, in Al-Medinah, where Waasal ibn Ata and Jaafar As-Sadique exchanged different opinions and he also participated in the revolts of Yahya, the son of Zaid and now what happened was that he was convinced that illegitimate authority had to be opposed by the use of arms. These were the final years of Umawi rule of Marwan ibn Muhammed in the year 132 of the hijrah, all the Islamic oppositional trends sensed that these were the last days of Bani Umayahs political deviation so everyone was preparing for who is going to rule or assume power after this horrible chapter of Islamic political history.
Also, there was a trend among the Muslims that said "the responsibility of ruling the Muslims has to return to the Hashemis." -meaning that strain of Quraish from which the Prophet of Allah, but they said that "those who should be ruling are the sons of Al-Abbas, the Prophets uncle- these are the legitimate rulers of the Muslims and they should be in charge of Islamic governance." There were two personalities or characters who were at the fore-front of this Abbasi/Ahl Al-Bayt trend. One of them goes by the title As-Saffah, the butcher, who died early on in life after the Abbasi political trend gained power and the other one is Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur, who used to be a student of Waasal ibn Ata.
This reminds us of today's world- we have individuals who used to be students in the Islamic movement but when they saw the opportunity to become rulers, they ran for that opportunity and abdicated their Islamic duties and responsibilities. To make a long story short, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur assumed power and there was a new form of monarchy, but this time this monarchy had a propaganda leverage that it represents the Islamic opposition which was furthest from the truth, but they used that.
People and governments that are in power use whatever they can to justify whatever they wanted to do- this is what they were doing. History has to be presented as frankly as possible- Abu Jaafar Al-Masur and the Abbasi political trend assumed power because of a reaction to Arabian nationalism that was represented by the Umawis. This reaction in Islamic history is called Ash-Shu'ubiyyah, one nationalism, ie. Arabian nationalism, under the suzerainty of Bani Umayah inflicted upon the Muslims another nationalism that expressed itself in the areas east of the land of the two rivers which is generally referred to as Persia.
Muslims were in a reactionary mode, but one nationalism does not justify another nationalism. Here is where the reaction took place and this is how these persons with an Islamic background got involved in just a counter part of the Umawis- the Abbasis were a counter part to the Umawis.
This reminds us in our generation of Algeria- the Muslims did all the fighting, dying, sacrificing and struggling and then the nationalist came and reaped the results. This same thing happened with the Abbasis- the Islamic opposition did all the fighting, dying, they paid all the price, the sacrifice and the struggle and then some people with a nationalist agenda came along and reaped the results. Damascus was history and as the Abbasis were consolidating their power in Baghdad, they were aware of the Islamic opposition because they were close to this political opposition for the past generation or two and what happened during this time of transition from Umawi to Abbasi was that one of the well known Mu'tazilis by the name of Amr ibn Ubaiy goes to Al-Medinah and he tries to consolidate and bring together all the strains of the Islamic opposition in a Shura process to agree on a leader in these critical circumstances.
The majority of the Muslims of Al-Medinah, through a Shura process, as was supposed to be the case through the past 100 odd years, agreed that An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah qualifies to lead the Muslims in finishing the struggle of the past years and launching the Muslims into a new era of Adl, justice, equality and political participation that was lost in the previous years at that level. Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur knew what was going on. People who are in power have informers all over the place, there were mercenaries all over the place- he knew all this was going on and this new form of government, which is just the counterpart to the previous one established a department to keep an eye on all types of opposition, particularly this new type of opposition that began in Al-Medinah.
An-Nafs Az-Zakiya understood that he is a wanted man. He gained the bai'ah of the majority of the Muslims through a shura process and now he was wanted by the illegitimate ruler. Now, there were two rulers, one of them was the one who had power and he forced the Muslims to give him the bai'ah and the other one was An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah who didn't have power but whose bai'ah was volunteered by the Muslims in Al-Medinah and in all other places.
We should hasten to say that before all this took place, there were the military physical defeat of Yahya that followed that of Zaid and in the area of Khurasan, the government would not let the Muslim public express themselves and how they felt towards Zaid and Yahya. When that Umawi government was gone and the new government was on its way, the Muslims felt so strong about Zaid and his son Yahya, that for one full year in the area of Khurasan, every male that was born was given the name of either Zaid or Yahya, but these internal feelings of the Muslim public were not given freedom of expression.
If you say that today in the Muslim world there is not freedom of expression, we can extend the absence of freedom of expression all the way back to that time. The supporter that An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah had on the popular level was no doubt a popular/across the board support.
Oct 27 2007, 08:28 PM
What do the people who are ruling in Baghdad- the Abbasis, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur- do now that they see that there is a popular Imam who has been given the popular bai'ah of the people and this is when Al-Imam Maalik, one of the renowned four fuqaha, came in and when he was forced to express his opinion, he said "Whoever is forced to give a bai'ah, that bai'ah doesn't count." -which means that Abu Jaafar Al-Mansurs bai'ah is illegitimate, and because of that he was tortured, jailed and persecuted. This is a little detail in history because they don't want us to develop the political positions of those who are considered fuqaha- well, this was the political position of Imam Malik that goes detached from the overall circumstances from which it came. Just like we have Islamic movements now, that function underground- we can also trace Islamic movements underground all the way back to that time.
An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah goes underground and he has to disguise himself and Abu JaafarAl-Masur tried to track or find him. He went to Najd, Hejaz, Adn, Bilad As-Sind, he came back to Al-Kufa and then he went back to Al-Medinah- all of this he did while he was wanted dead or alive by the monarchy in Baghdad- they were trailing him.
In one of his escape attempts in the Arabian Peninsula, he had his one year (or so) old baby with him. He was climbing the mountain and he lost control of the baby and the baby fell and died. This is just a small detail from the lives of underground Islamic opponents to illegitimate authority. Finally, when he came back to Al-Medinah, this was about the year 145 after the hijrah, almost 10 years after the Abbasi consolidation of their form of deviant political governance. The people in Al-Medinah rushed to him and guaranteed him their support.
Brothers and sisters- once again we encounter the public when they tell a legitimate leader that they are behind him and supportive of him- this is what he had- the numbers were… in Al-Medinah and Hejaz, there was around 100,000 who were behind An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah. A side comment- look at these rulers, there geography condemns them, because if they were Islamically ruling, what are they doing in Baghdad? The same way with the Umawis, what were they doing in Damascus? If there was an Islamic grain in them, they would be in Makkah or Al-Medinah, but they knew who they were.
Anyway, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur sends or dispatches thousands of warriors to Al-Medinah and they lay siege to Al-Medinah- in today's language, they imposed sanctions of Al-Medinah. Some people from within this popular support that he had were trying to give him advice, they told An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah, once again- this is not the 1st time we encounter this type of advice, they said "We don't think the odds are on our side. The odds are against us. We advise you to leave Al-Medinah and go to Egypt because in Egypt you have much more support and Egypt can be an equivalent base where you stand a chance to defeat these usurpers of power in Baghdad."
The tyranny of Baghdad was so bad that people who were opposed to the Umawis were saying that "we wish the Umawis were back in power." This army that had come to Al-Medinah and laid siege to it left an escape route, they left just one area for those who didn't want to fight to escape from and get out of Al-Medinah.
When An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah began to realize what was going on among these tens of thousands of people in Al-Medinah who just a few months ago were willing to fight to the bitter end but now that they were under siege and suffering from sanctions, they began to express that they are not able to go through with all of this, because they saw that they had to fight. On the other hand, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur was concerned with the movement of the Mu'tazilah, because the Mu'tazilah had the numbers all around. Towards the end of the Umawi state, they were about to take over in Damascus.
They were successful for some months in destabilizing the Umawi rulers, so Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur was concerned with the movement of the Mu'tazilah who probably were in the hundreds of thousands all around who would potentially come to the support of An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah because of the way he began initially, way back when Waasal ibn Ata came to Al-Medinah and was part of them. So, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur went to Amr ibn Ubaiy who was concerned the head of Al-Mu'tazilah and he asked him "What would you do if An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah were to come under pressure and was threatened by military force?" He said "You know that I would not give you a straight answer to that."
Remember, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur who is the ruler used to be a student of Waasal ibn Ata and Amr ibn Ubaiy- in other words, it's like saying in todays world, he used to belong to the Islamic movement or the Islamic revolution. Then Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur left and he had someone else go to him and try to pick his brain because he was concerned with theMu'tazili numbers. Finally, Amr ibn Ubaiy told this person that "If there were a number of individuals equivalent to and as committed as the number of Ahl Badr, it doesn't matter what type of opposition is out there, it is legitimate to fight against them (the rulers)."
At that time, Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur rest assured because he wasn't going to find 300 odd Muslims who are in the conviction, the level and the standards of Ahl Badr. So he said "we are sure that these Mu'tazilis are not going to be involved in this affair in Al-Medinah." Who was head of the military force that had laid siege to Al-Medinah? It was the great grandson of Abdullah ibn Abbas. We can recall who Abdullah ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) was in those years way back during the time of Uthman and Ali (radi Allahu anhuma). Imagine, his great grandson was to lead this army.
So, when we speak about families and great personalities, that doesn't mean that automatically you are going to have a virtuous familyand a virtuous offspring. Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur wanted to preempt the revolt of An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah, so what did he do? He brought An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah's brothers and cousins and immediate supporters- among them was the great grandson of Uthman ibn Affan- and he puts them in a dungeon or a hole next to the Furaat in which they could not know night from day and some of them began to die and their bodies decomposed in that dungeon.
The news was going out to An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah, who knew about his brothers, cousins and relatives who were treated like that by a person who used to belong to the Islamic opposition and who is now corrupted by power. He had to take a stand in Al-Medinah and he began to fight back.
The siege began the 1st day of Rajab 145 hijri year and then, on the 12th of Ramadaan, the two armies engaged. The fighting continued for a couple of days and An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah, once again, was an Islamic personality, leader and revolutionary who had to succumb to the insincerity of those who said they supported him and to those who committed treason to their principles and became the monarchs and the illegitimate rulers of the Muslims in Baghdad.
Once again, what happened was when the Muslims lose in Al-Medinah, this Abbasi authority takes the bodies of over 300 Muslims who were killed fighting against the 4,000 who laid siege on Al-Medinah and they crucified them- they put their bodies on crosses that extended from Thaniyat Al-Wada', remember when the Prophet arrived in Al-Medinah, (look how they pick places that will irritate) and what used to be the house of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (radi Allahu anhu), and the bodies remained there for days until the foul smell of these bodies caused the people of Al-Medinah to force these people to take these bodies down.
When they took these bodies down, they went up to a mountain and threw these bodies into a yahudi cemetery called Al-Mafrah. All of this history is almost buried- because if you go toAl-Medinah, are you going to see a place called Al-Mafrah? Would you know where Thaniyat Al-Wada' is? Or where Umar ibn Abdul Aziz used to live? Or where all of these events took place?
There are hands that not only are trying to destroy us mentally, but they are trying to destroy us physically. Just like they took the head of Zaid and began to display it in public, they did the same thing with the head of An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah. In other words, they beheaded An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah and took his head and displayed it in public. So, do we or do we not have Islamic political opponents of political deviation? We have them, their sacrifices, struggles and jihad and we disavow ourselves from that political deviation of the Umawis to the political deviation of the Saudis today and everything in between who usurped this power and are still getting away with it because what we are saying is not public information.
Brothers and Sisters, Committed Muslims…What we are expressing in these khutbahs is not irrelevant to what is happening in front of our eyes in our world today. You heard, in the past and you continue to hear that there's a possibility of a civil war in Iraq. We say to anyone who thinks- that there will be a civil war in Iraq and if something like that is going to happen, it will draw on our ignorance of who we are.
There is no reason for Muslims who think of themselves as Shi'is and Muslims who think of themselves as Sunnis to shed their blood because of a larger plan that wants to destroy the house of Islam due to nationalistic and sectarian residues. We know that we cannot speak to 1.7 or 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, but we can only express our mind and our conscience as best as they are made from understanding the Qur'an and the Prophet at this time every week. We only hope that there will be other Muslims who will wake up and begin to express these facts before it is too late.
There are (maybe)hundreds of thousands of jum'ahs in the world every week- imagine if the Ulema and the scholars were opening the minds of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are attending the hundreds of thousands of jum'ahs every week concerning these types of issues where the record is set straight and there is no access made into our internal affairs by the trouble makers who are either ignorant to the point of fatalism or who are mercenaries to the tune of millions or dollars or who are outright enemies of Allah and His Prophet.
But, when you have Masaajid and so-called scholars who are silent on these issues, then they have us fall into the currents and the rapids of sectarianism and nationalism. Through these khutbahs, we are contributing as much as we can to make that impossible. What we say, we say for Allah and we stand by what we say and we will go down with what we say with honor or we will overcome with victory.
The previous Negeri Sembilan trip was started from Ampang, Selangor through Hulu Langat then entering Negeri Sembilan through the district of Jelebu on to the town of Kuala Klawang then to Seremban followed by Astana or Kampung Penajis in Rembau. On the other hand, this trip was started from Kajang, Selangor before we enter Negeri Sembilan through south of Sepang to get to Lukut our first destination for the day!
For here lies a royal mausoleum containing the tomb of a certain personality by the name Raja Jumaat. Have a look at the article Makam (tomb of) Raja Jumaat, Lukut, Negeri Sembilan in the blogspot SENI LAMA MELAYU (MALAY OLDEN ART) ...
On the left lies the entry to the Lukut museum...
Inside it's compound then only we realise that our next main destination, the remains of the historical fort of Lukut lies on top this hill while the museum is on the slopes, to the right of this picture... Have a look at the posting Melihat sejarah di Muzium Lukut (Looking at history at the Lukut museum)! in SENI LAMA MELAYU (MALAY OLDEN ART) 
Then we climbed up the hill...
This monument says the fort of Lukut was built by Raja Jumaat, a Bugis Riau royalty in 1847. Then Lukut was known for its abundant tin ore and the fort was built as the command centre to control the on-goings around especialy tin mining and the bustling trade...
The view for on top of the hill just outside the remains of the fort...
Upon entering its perimeters, the first thing I noticed was this old rubber tree!
Here are some views of the remains of the fort of Lukut. I'm sorry I'm running out of time... I have to be home by 11 and it's already 10.40 when I wrote this sentence at an Interent Cafe. Cheers! :]
