Your Provision (Rizq) in Life is from Allah... not the EU

For latest posts visit my new website and subscribe! http://kamkashem.com

﷽

I apologise for the lateness of this advice. However I pray that it is still beneficial for those who wish to reflect.

I was surprised by the amount of Muslims that voted in the EU Referendum without really thinking it through. The emotion and commotion that came with the vote didn't help much either.

The common phrase I heard from Muslims throughout the day was that "this is going to affect our future or our children's future" or that "it's beneficial for us to stay in Europe" and even the odd "vote out because the migrants will take our jobs" which was funny coming from an immigrant Bangladeshi that has just received his shiny new British passport.

It is an emotional topic and one that really needs to be tackled at the most basic level. Let's go right down to ground zero, we believe that the Qur'an is the undisputed and unmatched word of the Creator. Correct? If we don't - then anything you read after this is nonsense to you and I suggest you pick up the Qur'an and re-assess your belief.

Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur'an that sovereignty belongs to Him and Him alone. He (swt) also tells us that we must judge by what He has revealed.

And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient. TMQ 5:49

It becomes evident that voting for a man-made constitution i.e. U.K, to be a part of another man-made constitution i.e. EU, is clearly forbidden and maybe seen as ascribing partners to the Almighty (swt). If we are to elevate man to such a status alongside Allah as sovereign, we are treading dangerous territory.

This leads one to conclude that if we are not allowed to vote for such a thing, do we sit back and do nothing while the future of our children and ourselves is in the hands of the rest of the country?

To address this question properly, the most important point is to understand where our sustenance and provision really comes from. Do we believe that it is due to our own actions that we provide food, shelter and comfort to ourselves and our families? As Muslims we must know that Allah (swt) is the sole Sustainer (Ar-Razzaq).

And We have provided therein means of living, for you and for those whom you provide not [moving (living) creatures, cattle, beasts, and other animals]. TMQ 15:20

We ask you not for provision; We provide for you, and the [best] outcome is for [those of] righteousness. TMQ 20:132

Yes - it is correct that man must carry out the actions to earn his provision (Rizq) however the outcome is always from Allah (swt).

Umar bin Al-Khattab narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

"If you were to rely upon Allah with the required reliance, then He would provide for you just as a bird is provided for, it goes out in the morning empty, and returns full." at-Tirmidhi Vol. 4, Book 10, Hadith 2344

We can learn from this ahadith that the bird actively sought it's provision with reliance upon Allah (swt) and returned full only through Allah's (swt) unlimited mercy. The same way we must carry out the action of working and believe the outcome was from Allah (swt).

If it isn't clear enough to us that our provision is from Allah (swt) then let us look at another example of the saying of our beloved Prophet ﷺ.

Anas reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

When you go to bed, say:" Praise is due to Allah Who fed us, provided us drink, sufficed us and provided us with shelter, for many a people there is none to suffice and none to provide shelter." Sahih Muslim Book 48, Hadith 87

Now that we have covered that voting for such a thing is forbidden and that our sustenance is solely from Allah (swt) and not in the hands of some super Euro state that keeps the pound stable. We need to discuss the solution. We are right in....
Read Full Article at http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/06/25/your-provision-rizq-in-life-is-from-allah-not-the-eu/

He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah Edit

For latest posts visit my new website and subscribe! http://kamkashem.com

مَّن يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ ۖ وَمَن تَوَلَّىٰ فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظًا

“He who obeys the Messenger ﷺ  has obeyed Allah; but those who turn away – We have not sent you over them as a guardian.” TMQ 4:80

We are living in a time where a child’s role model is effectively the Shaytaan dressed up as a man or woman. They follow them in every evil action and to that end, they will be raised up with them on the Day of Judgement and thrown into the fire.

“Let every nation follow that which they used to worship. Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire)” Sahih Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 105

Why is it that our children end up idolising (sometimes without knowing) certain people opposed to the Messenger ﷺ and his companions?

Today the media has become the most powerful tool in the world. It can shape societies, idolise individuals and brainwash the masses. It’s application is not only what we see or hear on the news channels but the way in which all of the ‘essential’ social tools we interact with daily have been designed.

They are able to precisely target propaganda by choosing what we read the moment we open certain applications. They can facilitate in uniting the world on any given topic of their choosing, for example, a rainbow backdrop over your profile picture in support of LGBT with a click of a button or even a specific national flag.

There is nothing innocent about these tools. In fact, many scholars in the West have written about the use of such tools for controlling the emotions of people on a massive scale. Take for example the journal article titled ‘Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks’ which was a study to secretly manipulate posts seen by 700,000 people and monitor their mental states.

Today, it is ever more important to guide our youth as well as ourselves in choosing the right role model. The only role model that will make us successful in this life as well as the next, can be none other than the Prophet of Allah ﷺ, who the companions themselves followed step-by-step.

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا

“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah ﷺ you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” TMQ 33:21

It is a command from Allah the Almighty that we obey the Messenger ﷺ. Just as it is a command we perform Salah or pay our Zakat. However, many of us have misunderstood the meaning of obeying the Messenger ﷺ.

For every obligation we have the practical method carried out by the Messenger ﷺ, and if the method was absent, the obligation would inevitably be absent. We are a nation that sticks to the method of the Messenger ﷺ on almost every matter, whether that be spiritual or social. Yet we fail to see that the methodology for political matters, such as moving towards an Islamic political solution, has been captured authentically in the Hadiths and Seerah of the Prophet. If only we took it from there, and not our own limited and stubborn minds…

This Ramadhan, let us make a conscious effort to read the Seerah of our Beloved Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and apply it in our lives. Let us narrate the Seerah to our children so that they may build love in their heart for the Messenger ﷺ. Only by knowing what he went through to give us Islam, can we build such a love, and not by mere words.

For latest posts visit my new website and subscribe! http://kamkashem.com

The Different Types of Salafi's

A new article recently published on WarOnTheRocks raised some interesting points regarding the two types of Salafi's the West need to deal with.

I've collated some of the main points here:

If we want to stop the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s recruitment to violence, a better question is how does the group transform centuries-old theological concepts into real and present threats?

Answering that question requires that we begin by stipulating that the Islamic State is a Salafi organization. Salafism is based on an exclusive adherence to this early Islamic Sunni theology. Next, we must recognize the historical division of Salafism between violent and non-violent strains in the 20th century under specific political conditions. Finally, and perhaps most urgently, we might consider the lessons of this history for our own strategic planning today.

Because of its emphasis on redefining Islamic faith and practice, Salafis — both violent and non-violent ones — prioritize their attention on fellow Muslims (Sufis, Shi‘is, even non-Salafi Sunnis) for promoting what they regard as “deviant” interpretations of the faith.

So why do some use this to attack others violently, while others only do so rhetorically? There is only one conceptual factor that drives this decision: the reason why others, in the eyes of different Salafis, fail to adopt their worldview. To non-violent Salafis, the reason they give is misinformation and misunderstanding — not having been exposed to their theological views. Innocence by omission. For violent ones, the reason is because of a deliberate resistance to it — an expression of the internal “unbelief” in God’s monotheism (kufr). Guilt by commission, and commission of the religion’s gravest sin, violating God’s “oneness.”

This divide is nearly as old as the religion itself, and was a core question underlying the evolution of early Islamic theology. On the one hand there stood Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855CE) and his circle (the so-called People of Hadith), who held that one’s faith is expressed in one’s “heart, tongue and limbs.” On the other, the more rationalist schools argued that this faith is only in the heart and tongue and need not be confirmed by actions of the limbs.

This debate surfaced in the 20th century as a fault line between violent and non-violent Salafis, who — unlike other Sunnis — ostensibly all identified with the People of Hadith in their theology, but who, in practice, came to different conclusions about the practical implications of this theology. The watershed moment came in 1986, when one Safar al-Hawali (b. 1950) put the finishing touches on his dissertation for the Saudi Umm al-Qura University. In it, Hawali — who, although not a jihadist, would be later regarded as something of their intellectual ally — attacked one Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999) for the latter’s view that one’s failure to pray was not a sign of “unbelief,” but rather could have been caused by laziness, oversleeping, or some other non-doctrinal factor. For Hawali, a Muslim’s neglect of proper Islamic conduct was evidence of ceasing to be Muslim. For Albani, who would later become the doyen of the so-called “quietist” strain of Salafism, a Muslim’s neglect of prayer was a sin but did not change one’s Muslim status.

In the 1990s, these positions became the core kernel of a new and broader debate on the issue of takfir (excommunication of other Muslims). Specifically, under what circumstances may Muslims excommunicate other Muslims, and thereby justify engaging in violence against them? On the one hand there were those who believed, as Hawali did, that failure to act in an Islamic way nullified one’s Islamic identity — these formed the intellectual nucleus of jihadism. On the other stood the quietists, Albani’s progeny, who resisted drawing the link between the need to behave in an Islamic way and the reasons for not doing so.

This became the debate between violent Salafis (or jihadists) and the non-violent ones (quietists), and the labels they used to attack one another are revealing of the sensitivities of each. Quietist Salafis almost universally refrain from referring to jihadists by their proper ideological designation as “Salafi-jihadists,” but rather use the term “takfiri” or “extremist,” referring to their singular focus on using takfir as a justification for wanton bloodletting. Quietist Salafis further argue that they too have principles of takfir and jihad, but that these are enshrined in a “methodology” — i.e. there is a time and a place for them. The names of early Islamic sects are also commonly invoked as labels for each group, but these are used strategically in a derogatory way and do not, as we saw earlier, reflect the actual theological positions on which each relies (examples include “Kharijites” for jihadists, and “Murji’ites” for quietists). In other words, their use is akin to how Westerners would freely use the “Fascist” label to describe any form of bigotry, despite its frequently ahistorical use.

It goes on to interestingly state that the Salafi's are not different to those who compromise their deen and enter into the political framework. The author recognises himself that this is in itself unislamic yet the Salafi's do not?

In Egypt, perhaps noting Sisi’s wide-ranging crackdown on journalists, Salafis continue to lament the “media campaigns” against them as their primary concern. Salafis have even competed in elections — a violation of one of their cardinal principles of rejecting modern institutions — since that, for them, was a mechanism of survival within the specific context of Egyptian politics under Sisi. Indeed, over the last year, Egypt’s Salafi Nour Party was able to navigate the country’s political turbulence by branding itself an ally of the state in combatting terrorism, rather than siding with their pro-Morsi Salafi counterparts in demanding Sisi’s ouster. In short, these examples demonstrate that the survival of Salafi groups within local political circumstances are just as much expressions of their pragmatic skills as they are of their ideological commitments. However, since their ideology is often used as justification for the decisions they make, one might also conclude that, just as with the divide between non-violent and violent Salafism at the end of the last century, the practical implications of Salafi ideology in the present century is equally conditioned by local contexts as it is by long-established theological concepts.

Saudi bombing Yemen on behalf of the U.S.

#Saudi bombing #Yemen on behalf of the #US #MuslimsSalvageYourselves

It has been proven that Saudi are now using cluster bombs to attack Muslims in Yemen. Note that it is not just the Houthi's being targeted as the attacks have not in any way, shape or form been targeting rebels but rather has been random attacks to destroy the infrastructure of Yemen including schools, roads, airports and industry as well as innocent Muslim lives. Human Rights Watch has reported the use of such weaponry with photo evidence as well as proof of the trade deals between Saudi and US to acquire such sophisticated and destructive bombs that should never be used in any type of war due to their uncoordinated use which will inevitably kill more civilians than it would strike actual targets.

"Bombs containing BLU-97 submunitions were transferred by the United States to Saudi Arabia as part of arms sales announced in the early 1990s". ~ Human Rights Watch

Dear Muslims, salvage yourselves. Account the rulers that disobey Allah (swt) when the Prophet ﷺ  said: "The wiping away of the World means less to Allah than a Believer to be killed unjustly" Ibn Maja 

Sources: http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/31/yemen-cluster-munitions-harm-civilians

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/12/saudi-led-air-strikes-target-yemen-rebels-before-start-of-ceasefire

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/can-the-un-talks-bring-peace-to-shattered-yemen/

Freedom of Expression (Free Speech)

Freedom of Expression (Free Speech)

Freedom of expression means that man has the right to express and advocate openly any opinion about any matter or issue without restriction.
Freedom of expression for the Capitalists is not simply confined to the accountability of the rulers, or criticising the behaviour of politicians and others, but it also includes the freedom to openly proclaim Kufr, deny the existence of Allah, and to call for any idea even if it contradicts the Islamic creed or disagrees with the rules emanating from it, such as the call and promotion to what Allah has forbidden like usury, gambling, alcohol, fornication and sexual perversion, and for many ideas that undermine the Islamic values, which Allah has commanded Muslims to hold fast to and protect.

Freedom of expression means allowing the agents, the hypocrites, those who are disobedient to Allah, and the enemies of Islam, to openly call against Islam and destroying the entity of the Ummah, fragmenting her into ethnic groups, regions, sects and groups. It allows the calls for racist tribalism, which Islam rejects and forbade Muslims to call for and which the Prophet (saw) himself described as “rotten”. Freedom of opinion also allows the calls for Kufr ideas that encourage immorality among women, vice, profanity, and corruption, and undermines the high values of honour. It is enough for a person to remember how this freedom allowed the apostate Salman Rushdie to openly proclaim and distribute what he said about the Prophet and the mothers of the believers to realise the extent to which this freedom has reached for Capitalists.

It is true that Islam allows a Muslim to express his opinion about anything or any issue, but it restricts him only to opinions derived from the Islamic creed or those built upon it, or within what Islam allows him to discuss. He has the right to express any opinion, even if it contradicts the opinion of the Khaleefah and his adoption, and even if it contradicts the opinions of a majority of Muslims. 

The only condition, though, is that his opinion should be based on an evidence from Sharia or within the limits of Sharia. Islam even obliges the Muslim to express his opinion and take the ruler to task if he abuses his authority by saying or ordering something that displeases Allah. Islam even elevated this act of standing up to the rulers to the level of Jihad for the sake of Allah. The Prophet (saw) said, “The master of Shuhada is Hamzah ibn „Abdul-Muttalib and a man who challenges an oppressive ruler, ordered him (to do good) and forbids him (from doing evil) and is killed by him.” However, it is not allowed for a Muslim to express any opinion that contradicts Islam, whether re the Islamic creed or anything emanating from it. Accordingly, he is not allowed to call for the “liberation of women”, or Nationalism, or Patriotism, or Regionalism, or a Kufr principle like Capitalism or Socialism, or indeed any idea that contradicts Islam.

Therefore, it is not allowed for Muslims to adopt the freedom of opinion which the Capitalists call for. Everything that is initiated by a Muslim should be confined by the Sharia. The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever believes in Allah and in the Hereafter, let him say good or refrain from saying anything.” The “good” referred to in the hadith is Islam, or what Islam approves of. Islam forbids Muslims to even show any inclination toward what contradicts Islam because the Prophet (saw) said, “You are not considered a (true) believer until your desire and whims are obedient to what I have brought in revelation”.

Taken from book: The American Campaign to Suppress Islam