You are right about the khutba. It was surprising to hear such fiery oratory from an imam in Sana’a. In his defense, I have to say that he is one of the most popular imams in the city. His mastery of classical Arabic, traditional poetry and his ability to read beyond the scripture has dramatically expanded the size of his congregation.
The manager of our hotel recommended the mosque (we say Jami’h to differentiate between street mosque/ masjid which is for daily prayers, and Jami’h which is often reserved for Friday prayer) because it is in honor of those who died in the revolutionary war. As you already know, I love the institution of the mosque because I believe it to be the most democratic institution in the Arab world. If progress is to come to this part of the world, it has to be through these institutions. The eradication of liberty or political freedom, especially of those imams, is a threat to the consolidation of democratic institutions in the Muslim World. By building on the great potential of the masjid system, it is possible to implement social change, reform and expand human capital in these regions. Indeed, we should modernize masjid’s madrassa systems, promote difference of opinions on its MeHraab, and, of course, tackle its patriarchal disposition. Malaysia and Cape-town, South Africa are a few good models in this regard.
The current policy that considers state-appointed imams to be the best choice of removing factions, or filtering "hate" messages from the community is a dangerous precedent. I harbor a Madisonian attitude in this regard. For, as he argues in the Federalist Papers that there are 2 methods of removing the causes of faction. One by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence. Two by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions and the same interest. Madison argues that it could never be more truly said of the first than that it is worse than the disease.
Curtailing the liberty of imams has never proven to be a successful approach to removing faction, or improving the spritual well-being of a community. A good example in the history of Islam can be learned from the khawarij movement of the earlier ages. This movement was considered by all account of earlier historians as the most perilous, most destructive and most dividing force in the development of Islam. However, Al-mubarrad, a 9th century linguist and historian, has pointed out to what enabled this violent movement to go on for many decades. In his book Al-Kamil, he mentioned that the endurance of the khwarij “kharijites” into the end of the 9th century was primarily due to the fact that Ummayad rulers and their subordinates, as in the case of al- Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi of Iraq, refused to allow Khawarij preachers to use mosques or express their grievances publicly. Most Sunni clergymen of the time condemned the khawarij as "deviated sects and violent Muslims." As a result, the khawarij moved to the peripheries of the Ummayad empire and led a lethal, deadly and protracted rebellion against the Ummayad dynasty.
A similar case can be made for the Muslim community (ies) of the United States. The recent professionlization of mosque administrations, which means giving mosque executive boards the right to oversee and manage imam’s activities and sermons, has made listening to mosque sermons one of the most torturous experiences of worshipers, because these sermons are no longer sparking people’s interests or concerns. A student in one of my previous culture classes has found out via survey that 10 percent of Friday congregation do sleep or doze during Friday khutba. What that entails is the inability of these “managed” imams to address issues that are relevant to their congregations.
Well, let’s go back to the imam of Masjid As-Shuhada. He is a unique case, and particular in the imamhood of the city. You are right; he is “protected somehow.” As a result he will not “soon face whatever legal penalties are invoked against Imams who lead their own congregations.” I think he is protected for many reasons: he is an Egyptian from Al-Azar as-Shareef University; he has been in this particular mosque for many years, and the fact that Al-azar has a particular prestige in the Sunni world of Islam. So, it makes sense for the state to tolerate this popular figure. Furthermore, as a foreign imam, he will never build a social base that can represent a threat to the interest of the state.
His Khutba was exceptional: classic in its structure and content, but modern in its scope and focus. What you consider “the hot button words” does not necessarily represent “taboo for Friday rumination”. I think if he were running for an office in the States, he could be liberal enough to be elected in any blue state, or conservative enough to be elected in any red state. He divided his khutba into three segments: local, national and international. On local issues, he attacked the patriarchal society that took away what he calls “Islamic rights” of women: to marry whom she chooses, rights to property, rights to education etc.. He recalled some cases of young girls in the old city of Sana’s who complaint to him in these matters. He then adorned these points with many Quranic verses and saying (hadith) from the prophet of Islam. On a national level, he attacked the rich and the powerful for not taking care of the poor. He passionately recounted seeing a child eating from the wastebasket in Sana’a. At this point, he was on fire: attacking the wealthy for not sharing their bits and pieces, and the government for not addressing poverty, and finger-pointing to his wealthy neighbors in the Gulf for not sharing their prosperity. Ironically, Thursday was the wedding of the president’s daughter, and he alluded to the imperative of balancing between government extravagance and taking care of those who cannot support themselves.
On the international level, his attitude toward the War in Iraq is similar to the attitudes of most Democrats and many Republicans in the States. He argues against the “un-just war,” to quote his own words, and the needs to stop a war that is “taking many innocent lives of women and children”. In other areas, he characterized the continuation of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine as a shameful mark on the foreheads of mankind.
