Ep.103 - Unity, Waiting for Imam Mahdi & AI Mujtahids with Shaykh Shuayb Wani
We often hear from Muslims that our ummah suffers from disunity on a local, national and international level. Slight differences of opinion can cause major divisions. Our countries remain deeply divided between themselves and there is an impression that has consolidated that we will not be able to recover our position. This situation has led to despondency. Helplessness and in the extreme, an acceptance of the status quo. But is this written? Is there anything we can do about this parlous situation? Have we come to the end of Muslim civilisation, and are we now merely managing decline? Are we waiting for the Mahdi, a leader who will change our situation? Or is there anything we can do about our predicament? To help us understand the issues of unity and division from an Islamic perspective we have invited Shaykh Dr. Shuayb Wani.
Dr. Shuayb Wani is the Director and Co-Founder of the Dār Al ‘Ilm Institute https://daralilm.org - He grew up in Indian-occupied Kashmir and started his quest to learn Islamic ‘Ulūm during his schooling years. He completed his foundational Islāmic Studies in India, and at Al-Azhar University, Egypt. He devoted 10 years to studying advanced Islāmic Studies specializing in Usūl al-Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) at the International Islamic University, Malaysia. He holds a PhD in : “The Legal Thought of Imam al-Shafi‘i” published in 2021. He has 20 years experience of teaching Islamic ulum. He lives in Istanbul with his family.
You can donate to the show here: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/contribute
Follow us on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/jalalayn and https://twitter.com/thinking_muslim
Join our Telegram group here: https://t.me/thinkingmuslim
Sign up to Muhammad Jalal’s newsletter https://jalalayn.substack.com
Transcript
Unity, waiting for Imam Mahdi & Al mujtahids with Shaykh Shuayb Wani
This transcript was computer generated. Please check the transcript against the programme for accuracy.
We often hear from Muslims that our Ummah suffers from disunity on a local National and international, level slight differences of opinion can cause major divisions, our countries remain deeply divided between themselves, and there is an impression that has consolidated that we would not be able to recover our position. This situation has led to despondency, a helplessness and in the extreme an acceptance of the current status quo. But is this written? is there anything we can do about our parlous State of Affairs? Have we come to the end of Muslim civilization, and are we now merely managing decline? are we waiting for the Mahdi a leader who would change our situation and until then we are helpless or is there anything we can do about our current predicament?
To help us understand the issues of unity and division from an Islamic perspective, I have invited Dr Shuayb Wani, he is the director and co-founder of Dar al Ilm Institute; he grew up in Indian occupied Kashmir and started his quest to learn Islamic ulum during his schooling years. He completed his foundational Islamic Studies in India and then moved to Al Azhar University, Egypt. He devoted 10 years studying Advanced Islamic Studies specializing in Usool al fiq at the International Islamic University, Malaysia. Dr Wani holds a PhD in the legal Fort of Imam Shafi’i which was published in 2021; he has over 20 years’ experience of teaching Islamic ulum and he lives in Istanbul with his family. Dr Shuayb Wani, assalamu alaikum warahmatullah and welcome to The Thinking Muslim.
Wa alaikum assalam wa warahmatullah wa barakatu, JazzakUmmahllah khayr for having me. May Allah SWT grant us sincerity and make this engagement fruitful.
Amen, ameen. JazzakAllah khayr, it’s really a pleasure and honor to have you with us today.
BarakAllah fikum
Here in Istanbul. Now let's start with the current situation of the Muslim Ummah. We face so much disunity is our current situation typical of Muslim history or are we living in an unprecedented situation in unprecedented times.
Bismillah wa Alhamdulillah wa salatu wa salam ‘ala rasullillah. Am adab.
The Ummah lacks a goal, Maksilul ujud, the maksil of existence. So it's like constructing a house we have the bricks we have the tools we have the human resource, to some extent, we have it at our disposal, but we don't know how to do it or we may be doing it but in wrong way. So the Ummah needs a vision, a mission, a push towards its raison detre.In the time of the Prophet sallalahu ‘alayhi wa salam (sws), we had divisions and the Quran maintained these divisions, like the famous classification of the Sahaba between al majiroon and al Ansar. In the battlefield also the Prophet sws maintained this classification in division, yes. But in spite of that they were agreed on something higher, so though in my opinion Ummah lacks this vision and I feel that Ikhtilaf is intrinsic to all great civilizations, it is important because particularly the Ummah, the Muslim Ummah has engaged human beings across the spectrum. It is a huge civilization in history; different races ethnicities colors cultures. For this reason from the principles of Usool or a very important evidence we have al ‘urf, custom acknowledging the different customs and it isn't it's a legal evidence, imagine. It's not only acknowledging it but it has become a legal device for ahka, because Allah Subhana wa ta’ala swt knew ‘iany, it was in his divine plan and the Prophet sws knew that the Ummah will expand so when you have a great Ummah, and the greatness is unprecedented in history, ikhtilaf will happen but we have to learn the skill of regulating that khilaf understanding it or we can say adopting creative imagination in cultivating the khilaf for higher purposes. Ikhtilaf will not dissolve so this is in my opinion what we need to do and understand.
So, I want to expand and I want you to expand on what we mean by regulating differences in a second, but when we speak to the ordinary Muslim now we could walk in the streets of Istanbul and come across normal people, ordinary people, and automatically they will say “today we are deeply divided”. You go to any country in the world, I mean I was just an example I was speaking to my relative in in South Africa and he said the number one problem the Muslim Ummah faces is division and often they will recall Hadith that the Prophet, aleyhi sallatu wa salam, talked about “A time will come when we willbe deeply divided”, can you shed light shaykh Shuayb on these ahadith, these narrations and whether they are applicable to our time today.
Coming to the Hadith we can talk about it theologically and I don't want to go into that discussion, yeah. But generally speaking the Hadith which has been recorded by Imam Abu Dawood in his Sunan about the division of the Ummah into 73 sects. The scholars of Hadith have serious disagreement about the mutun of this hadith. Mutun being? The text of this hadith, yes. They talk about the chains also, because the mutun says: the Jews and the Christians they divided into 71 and 72 sects, the Ummah will divide into 73. So this is a worst Ummah not the best Ummah. So, according to minority, I'm not saying the majority of the Hadith Scholars they accept this Hadith. It's acceptable, but there is a minority, yeah. Some who had disowned they caused doubt on the authenticity of this Hadith, because of the mutun. They say this is against the Quran, contradicts the Quran because Quran clearly has established the fact that this Ummah is khayrun Ummah, ukhrul lilja tdi nas, now this 71, 72-73 this has become a worse Ummah, and then there is something very important in this Hadith, the mutun. The Prophet sws, he said “ this Ummah will divide into 73 sects” , kula filnar, all of them are in Hellfire, ila wahida, except one and then we have this construct of ahlul sunnati fil jammah. In my personal opinion I have researched this Hadith for a very long time, this kula filnar, is shaadh, it's odd, okay. Shaadh is hadith, in Hadith terminology means it's odd, right it's an addition interpolation, right. Kula filnar, this is the ‘ila in the Hadith, defective interpolation in this hadith. So, this Hadith is speaking about the division, the problem is kula fil nar, all of them are in Hellfire. So, yes there is division there is ikhtilaf, and we have the famous classification of ikhtilaf into accepted and rejected, it is there well known but we have to understand the fact that ikhtilaf is something intrinsic to human existence, right.This is important so, it the problem is not ikhtilaf, the problem is the division we have in different aspects of, in the Muslim Ummah, different aspects of human life, are we controlling them? our political system is it ours? then we have ikhtilaf, our leaders are disagreeing on different points. Economic system it doesn't belong to us, the reality, and this is I think the greatest challenge of the Ummah that the Ummah on ground, the Muslims, are living in times where the reality is totally alien to their worldview this is the issue.
Explain that, how, how is it alien to our worldly…?
Because the reality is Western. Even it influences us even in understanding Islam, right. Understanding of a religion so, we must understand these terms, understanding terminology is really important. Like we have the great linguistic philosophers in Islam differentiating between ikhtilaf and khilaf. This ikhtilaf is praiseworthy, ikhtilaf is good.
Ikhtilaf, explain that.
We, we have to translate it yes as diversity, diversity okay. Right, and Khilaf: discord, disunity. They both belong to the same route but they differentiate, so to understand this is is very important, and the division which happens usually between the Muslims on the ground level is artificial, yes. It has been created, yeah. I take the example of Fiqii talafaat, yes. I come from a conflict Zone, Kashmir. We are struggling for of existence every moment and the religious discourse which has been promoted in these places focus is on how should we wipe on our socks, should we pray eight or Twenty. so this is a problem. So, understanding these matters is important.
So, let's talk about ikhtilaf when it comes to… or khilaf maybe when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence. You are an Islamic scholar and you know that it is often the case that the device, divisions between Muslims on Fiqqi the issues turns into major divisions. You may go to a community and they would have two or three massajids based on their differences of opinion when it comes to how they view Islamic jurisprudence. Now you've made a very interesting point I think a few times now that differences isn't a problem it's how we regulate those differences. So, how does Islam show us or tell us how to regulate these differences that may exist on a jurisprudence level.
Yes, again, the answer is regulating each ikhtilaf on all levels not only in jurisprudence, yes. But at the level of worldview. We must learn from the West how they have regulated and contained their khilaf. The Quran speaks about ikhtilaf between Jews and Christians, right. It is a serious ikhtilaf, the god of Christians is the fake prophet of the Jews. This is a serious ikhtilaf, we don't have we don't have ikhtilaf to such a level, even between shias and sunnis, yes.
Some sects maybe to the extreme, but look to this khilaf, and yet they are united: the Jews, the Christians, the the world order. So, regulating khilaf is important, I said we must understand that ikhtilaf is intrinsic to human existence. Allah swt him is based on ikhtilaf right. The names and attributes of Allah swt they're opposites, ikhtilaf. The names and attributes of Allah Allah Mercy, Allah's Mercy, Allah has Revenge, the attribute of Revenge, gadab, anger, mercy, so on and so forth. The attributes of opposites, and in fact this creation has been has been the manifestation of the attributes in the creation in the existence is very clear. We have this beautiful Hadith in Sunan at Tirmidhi, and other books of Hadith about ikhtisa mulmala il ala. The ikhtisa means argumentation, ikhtilaf, khasm is the opponent in Arabic. Ikhtisa mulmala il ala, mala ul ala are the Angels, mala ul ala the higher realm. And if you reflect on this Hadith the Prophet sws dream and it has the details. The ikhtisam has been used for fruitful discussion in this Hadith. The Prophet sws told the Sahaba that do you know about Ikhtisam ulmala il ala, they discuss about al kafarrat, the deeds which erase the sins, at darajat: the voluntary actions which raise your levels, the term ikhtisam is not appropriate if we look from the apparent meaning so mala ul ala also… the ikhtilaf is present in mala ul ala. And if the law was present in the times of the Prophet sws. So, regulating means understanding the praiseworthy ikhtilaf and the rejected ikhtilaf, classification.
So give me an example of a praiseworthy ikhtilaf.
Praiseworthy ikhtilaf is using ikhtilaf as a principle of epistemology, using ikhtilaf as a principle which fosters and nurtures knowledge. So for example we have the great faqih, al Imam Malik, rahmahulah, his work, Al Muwatta, is the first book of Hadith which has reached us, yes. In his times the great Khalifa Abu Jaffar al-mansor. He requested Imam Malik to compile the work of law, so that he can implement it in the khilafa, make it the law of the land, right. Abu Jaffar al-mansor, and in that he says it has been narrated that he said to Imam Malik, a wide the rukhas of Ibn Abbas, the easy opinions of Ibn Abbas, in your… in that work the Shadaid of Ibn Umar. Strong opinions of Ibnu Umar, and the shaadhdh of Abdullah bin mas’ud radiulaha al humalun. And all opinions of Abdullah bin mas’ud.
So shaadhdh meaning
Odd opinions.
And this this practice it, it went to the four schools, we have mufradat, all imams. This is specific with a particular madhab, someone shares it, right.
So the Khalifa is saying to Imam Malik: we would like to have a centralized law, yes, for everyone. But we, I would like it to avoid, it might be, balanced.
It must, okay, yeah. I have to implement it across the spectrum, right,
Right. I will not implement it only in Medina.
So, he wants to implement in Medina in Baghdad…
Everywhere
Okay
But Imam Malik did not agree.
Why?
Imam Malik appreciated the methodology of Abu Jafar al-mansoor in compiling this work. Avoid the the shaadhdh and rukhas, and he said he taught me how to compile myself but he did not agree he said wadahid kadalamani at tasnif, he taught me how to compile masail. But he did not agree, he said, because sahaba have scattered, they have students, they have opinions, there is disagreement. I don't want to erase this disagreement because it's fruitful, it will nurture knowledge. And same is the case with the great Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, the eighth Umayyad Khalifa, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz is known as the fifth Khalifa rashid, yeah. It has been narrated from him that he said I never wish that sahaba would have never agreed. The agreement of the sahaba is the rahma, yes. And for this reason
we see that the early scholars would dislike the term khilaf, for disagreement right. So if indir majalis any student would say this is ikhtilafi, like it has been narrated from Imam Ahmad and others. He would say don't say khilaf, call it sa’a, call it call it vastness. So using ikhtilaf as a principle of epistemology. When you rely on only one scholar, his understanding, one mind Allah swt has given
us different minds, different capabilities, Allah has made us different, Allah has and this tashajub another term for ikhtilaf is tashajub. I'm focusing on terminology, yes. Terminology is very intrinsic, yeah, to every civilization. the great skull of Arabic literature was a mu’tasijidi, al jahidh, established. He says: li kuli kaumin al fadh: every nation has terminology. So, the revival is also based
on term. That's why we are discussing, I'm using terms here. So ikhtilaf, ikhtisam, tashajjur.
Tashajur meaning
Tashajur means debate.
Tashajur comes from shajara, shajara also has the same root, the tree because three is diverse branches, right. Leaves, fruits, diversity, yes. And Allah swt has compared the the example of kalimatul tayiiba, as shahada, the pure word. The the foundation of our deen is the example of a tree asuhathabit thu a fard wa hafis sama, and this is the greatest example for ijtihad, yes. the Prophet sws compare the believer, so tashyajur and in some ahadith the Prophet sws compared a believer with a tree. Very famous ahadith, the date palm tree. So tashyajur is intrinsic, erasing it means erasing knowledge. So using it as an epistemological principle cultivating it benefiting from different minds that's why for this reason, I think, and this is a theological point we must correct our theological position, yeah about ikhtilaf, also. Yearning for certainty yes in all matters is against the Islamic view of life, it's against our worldview. For example you will hear some people who reject the Hadith. They say how can we rely on the narrators after all they're human beings, right. knowledge is not certain, so yearning for certainty is wrong. For this reason the texts which Allah swt revealed, they are not all definitive. Allah swt revealed the texts which are mostly speculative, so that people think. The principle of iktilah, if if we define Islam or the purpose of life in one word it is the kanunun iktilah, the kanun, the principle of test. We are here for Iktilah, but Iktillah, in two things in our action. How we act how we obey the commands of Allah's messenger actualizing the will of Allah in space and time, yes. And iktillah and ijtihad. Iktilah in how we understand his will, how we understand the wahih, and some great scholars like Imam Shafi’I, rahimuhulahi, in jurisprudence he pointed to this very early in the beginning of his al risala. He says: Allah swt has tested the the human beings particularly the Muslims in two things: in action of the implement this deen in their personal life, Collective life and in It talah, al ijtihad, in ijtihad. So, I think ikhtilaf is intrinsic and it must be cultivated in understanding our religion, understanding the reality benefiting from different minds, benefiting from the different experiences. We can benefit from civilizations. There is civilization exchange always. Islamic civilization was never a closed civilization, right. So cultivating can have these different meanings and manifestations.
So this is a very interesting poetry because I was going to talk today I wanted you I I've invited, you here to talk about the divisions that exist between us but we've started with jurisprudence divisions and your response is really that this is not a problem in fact this ends up helping the Ummah it creates creativity it makes Muslims think more deeply about their matters. But you do also
know that there is a movement today amongst Muslims to try to unify their fiqh opinions, because there is this understanding that maybe things have gone too far and maybe there's too many differences of opinions that exist so. I suppose I've got two questions here, why does this movement exist to unify opinions, and is it a healthy movement to have within the Ummah?
In my opinion it is influenced by Western modernity. This yearning for one fiqh, one opinion, one law, one theology is an influence, alien influence. We never had this, really. We are talking about Malik, yeah. We're talking about sahaba, the Prophet himself sws, yeah. This is the prophet, the sahaba the wahi yeah nothing else. So the Prophet himself sws disagrees with other prophets, yeah. in law, the prophets agree in their law? why is the disagreement in law? Yeah true. And, in fact the laws of the previous prophets, Allah swt calls it shackles in the Quran, burden, imagine. If this prophet, the last prophet has come to lift alaghlal from you, the burden, and the shackles. So, the prophets are disagreeing in law, eah. Why? Because every law came to a particular nation, considering its reality, reality of the human beings also. And this is a very deep topic in anthropology, maybe sociology reality of human beings of the past, reality of their society. The prophets disagree, the sahaba disagree. We have a particular sahabi in every area of of the Muslim lands in those times, who has his own fiqh. Abdullah ibn Abbas in Makkah, Abdullah ibn Umar in Medina, Abdullah ibn masud in Iraq, the wives of the Prophet sws alaihi wasallam and radiallahhu anhum, they are disagreeing; our mother Aisha r.a she disagreed with other sahaba in more than 150 matters, right. And Scholars have compiled works on that. So, this is intrinsic that's why it's intrinsic to Islam. Erasing it, unifying the Ummah, is it possible before we do it, is it even possible? It means erasing the different ethnicities, cultures, different realities of the Ummah, yeah. Is it possible? I don't think it has ever been the main concern of the Ummah in our history, and it is not possible.
We have some contemporary scholars like we have the Egyptian scholar Said Saddiq, he wrote fiqhul sunnah, in that he tried to create a balanced opinion in between. It doesn't work, and another point we must understand about fiqqih matters, generally we should not be focusing on only fiqh, yes. We should talk about our worldview in general, in theological matters also, yes. We don't have this agreement at the core, we have disagreed about the branches, we have disagreed about the details in between Muslims who disagrees about oneness of God, the prophethood, the sahaba. There are some sects who go to the extreme sometimes we have one Quran, we have the the the text is Muslims are unified on the text, they are unified on the the prophet of Allah sws and in if you if you study in theology. We don't disagree on on the basic matters, the disagreement is on how they understood, how they cultivate this is valid ijtihad? Ijtihad can happen and is praiseworthy in my opinion, in both Aqeedah and fiqh, Aqeedah and law, but in the branches. In the furu’h of Aqeedah and in law, and law is already called furu’h, yeah. So, I think the problem of the Ummah is something else, which we mentioned in the beginning.
Yeah, I want to pick up on on those issues of Aqeedah because, yes. There are Muslims who probably accept that difference of opinion on Fiqqih matters, are a natural and we're just going to have to accept that. Most Muslims I think have have come to this view, but there are people who argue that on Aqeedah matters only one school is correct. So, for example I was speaking to a very good friend of mine and he said that he's not going to listen to such and such scholar because he's an ashari. So, in Aqeedah matters, or you know you were here on when I produced an episode, someone will write on the comments that the Ottomans should be rejected because they followed the maturity, okay. So how do we understand that level, of… Because that seems very fundamental that, we’re we're effectively canceling a whole a whole community of scholars because of their affiliation to a particular Aqeedah matter.
I think we have become reductionist in that approach, and reductionism is another problem. Who is… What is Asharism? Who is it? Al Imam Abu al- Hasan al –Ashari, was a great mind, right. He practiced ijtihad in Aqeedah, right. Who is Abdul Mansur al Mutali? Another great mind. Why are we not able to engage with these great minds? Understand their legacy, cherish it? base the understanding of contemporary Islam on what they did, this is our problem reductionism. So, the problem is not engaging with it, not understanding it properly, not studying this uloom. There's this opinion of the civilization exchange, all uloom have come from others, al mulqalam is a Greek influence. Logic, muntiq… As if Allah swt does not speak about aqal. Logic at the core is using aqad, right? Cherishing aqal. There can be some details about which we disagree based on our own worldview, yeah. But no one disagrees about using aqal, aqal is a great nia’ma, and this is connected with ikhtalaf in the Quran also. Allah SWT talked about ikhtilaf in in the day and the night, ikhtilaf of the languages, ikhtilaf of the ethnicities, and then Allah says there are signs for Ulul albab, Ulul albab. People of loop, albab. Loop means those people who use aqal to its utmost potential. So, and if if for example the mainstream three Ahlul Sunnah. You call it call them, and even this term Ahlul Sunnah wa al jammah is very cosmetic, everyone calls himself Ahlul Sunnah. And the problem is also about the sources. For example, how do you understand mo’tazila their legacy, yeah, we don't have sources. So, if we engage with the famous the af’ali school. Aqeedah based on purely textual evidence the the Asharis and the Maturidis, if you study them, you will not find any basic disagreement, they all agree, yeah. They disagree on the details, right. And we were able to cherish it, and use it in our times of skepticism, doubts, we know how these things are destroying our youth in the Muslim world. For this reason, the elite scholars would feel, and they would encourage almulqalam. We must have a scholar who fulfills fardul kifayah in this matter, who can address the doubts. When you don't know philosophy, you don't know logic, you don't know Western social sciences, you're a reductionist even in understanding your own texts. How will you how will you address these problems, how will how will you engage? Yes. How will you create a modern Islamic civilization? Because the Revival of the Ummah is not creating a political system, in my opinion. It would have been easy, a state with a ruler implements Islam that's it, and
in fact, it would be impossible in the times of globalization. It is about recreating the civilization itself; we're talking about this civilization. And civilization is a big project. So, if we don't know these things we cannot… So, in my opinion reductionism is the problem and the scholars are not updating themselves. They’re not engaging with their legacy, yeah.
So, can I actually ask you about mu’tazilla as a school of thinking. Now, my understanding is that mu’tazilla is outside of the Ahlul sunnah branch, so the free schools you mentioned of Aqeedah, they come within what you term the acceptable opinions within Islam. But mu’tazilla stands outside of that particularly because of their extreme rationality, how did early Islamic scholars view mu’tazilla, did they see them as part of a a branch of Islam? Or did they see them to be outside of Islam? effectively unbelievers.
The problem we face in understanding the mu’tazilla is the sources, we don't have the original sources, right. We take the information from the opponents from the books of ashay’ra, and the majority of the works about the sects, yeah. Has been compiled by ashay’ra, right. like the main work of Imam Abdul Hasan al ashari “milal al nihal” so we don't know. We have access to some works and understanding a sect or a group, or an ideology from its opponents is not the correct way right to approach this, right. We will lack objectivity in that engagement, and recently some works have been published about the mu’tazilla. The approach generally is they’re Muslims, right. The 70s two sects are Muslims, yeah. And even the scholars were deemed extreme in their ideology they have agreement on this like shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyya r.a. He says two sects are Muslims very clearly except fringe elements, and really extreme sect. So they are Muslims, however they criticized the methodology, but it’s very interesting to note they that's why this ikhtilaf, regulating they engaged with them they cherished it, really. Yeah. Who doesn't from the mufassiroon, the mainstream mufassiroon, who does not use the book of Imam al-Zamakhsari al Kashaf, he is a mu’tazillite? Al Shaykh al mo’tazil. He would, he would take pride in that, yeah. It's very famous when Imam Zamakhsari would visit a person and knock on the door, and he would introduce himself. If the person would ask who is there, he would say Shaykh al mu’tazilla. So, they they accepted, and we can learn from mu’tazil many matters, yeah. So, we can learn from them, like for example it's really famous about mu’tazilla that they reject the Sunnah, right. But the book| of al Imam al Balkhi, famous mu’tazillite was published recently about the riwayya, the the Hadith, in that he endorses khabr ahat, okay. And it's very interesting to see the mu’tazillite influence on the Hanafi hadith terminology, because Hanafees have extra conditions; they disagree in in the conditions with the majority. So hanafis were influenced by the mu’tazilla in their Hadith terminology and it's really clear. And more mu’tazilla were influenced by some Mu’tazillites, by Imam Shafi’i. The work of Shafi’I, do you see influence? Yeah. They're benefiting from each other and in our times we’re fighting on their names, this is a problem. so yes we have to maintain the mainstream, we have to maintain the Usool, we have to maintain the qaryat al qulayat. The higher objectives or soul principles of religion, but at the same time we can engage and I see great diversity in our Legacy wallahi. I sometimes listen to Shia Scholars as well I don’t.
have any problem in that. We should learn, that’s why I said we should learn from the West. See the political divide, yes. Left and right, yes. They engage, we lack this engagement because we have lost the catalyst, the push.
Yeah, so this is really really interesting, because there is this movement in the Ummah to… some in the Ummah to reunite the Muslims, and that's a great great plan right. And one idea is that we need to have a coherent State a government with a clear Constitution that's going to inevitably adopt a motherhub or a way of thinking. Yours effectively arguing this would be out of sync with the Islamic in the past because we never really had a situation where you had a centralized system, and and is the Islamic fiqh was applied centrally from central government. Is that a… am I reading your, your your points correctly here?
Yeah, we had that some khulafah did that and we, we know that the Hanafi madhab was implemented in that. And in your… yeah, Uthmani khilaf as well. And we can do that again, uniting politically, yes. Creating a political system, uniting politically we can do that. And it would be another experience, we can learn from the experience, but I quoted the scholars the scholarship never accepted that. So I think we should focus on the higher principles, higher goals, raise in their creed as I said. So, we unify on them on the big matters and leave the diversity in the branches, leave it.
But can I learn from it yeah so there is I'll give you another another opinion, another point. So, again I I have a lot of friends who say to me that one of the
symbols of our disunity is the moon sighting issue. So we have many communities even in the West for example in Britain you would have multiple maybe sometimes free Ramadan beginning so free eids would, would be evident in a single Community because they follow different methodologies to, to come to a conclusion about moon sighting. Some fellow scientific
moon sighting evidence, some follow the the sighting in some… there are many many methods. Is it correct for for the sake of unity to try to get all of these diverse opinions to follow one opinion.
I don't think it is correct. Really? Because this ikhtilaf, in this example for an, in this masala, for example, yeah, is based on the texts. We have texts in that we have the hadith of Sahih Muslim, yes, about the difference in matale’. If Abdullah ibnu Abbas did not do it. Why should we do it? Leave it. We should unite on the purpose of eid. What is the purpose of eid, okay, yes. We miss that. This is the reductionism yeah, we focus on the massa’. How, how to how to celebrate our eid when to celebrate our eid. What is the purpose eid what is the purpose of extra takbirat, yes, in the prayers of eid praising Allah, what does it mean? so the unity is good, but we have to define these terms we have to define these terms in a profound manner. We have to theorize for the Ummah, this is what we lack, West has been theorizing from its Renaissance. We had great minds in the
past, now we have fallen into reductionism, so we must define unity it should not be cosmetic. It should not be unity, superficial unity, yeah. We have to unite in thought and this thought also should be defined I said focus on quliat, because we are Muslims, we believe in wahee this is the khayrea we have in the Ummah, the khayr. Kuntum khayrun ummahtin, khayria is in the wahee. Allah swt called this wahee khayr, in another verse. So, understanding this khayr and presenting it to the mankind with its diversity is important, yeah. can I… I'll tell you a very interesting point, yeah. The text… the nature of the texts, why did Allah select the lost and find messenger from the Arabs? the nature of Arabic language. Arabic language is very vast, diverse. Al Imam shafi’I r. says la yuhitu biya illa nabi. No one can encompass the Arabic language with its diversity and intricacies except a prophet. It's diverse yes, so we have this Mas’ala which is discussed about the non-Arabic terminology or words in the Quran. So one answer to that is that the non like Ibrahim, al muminum min al sarf- we call this in grammar one answer
to this is that perhaps this came from, because the Semitic languages they share many things. I heard a scholar saying a contemporary scholar from Morocco he said Hebrew is sister of Arabic. So, the diversity in the text which you claim, and this is khayrea we have without we are nothing. This is the khayrea. Al Imam al Shatibi, great legal mind of the Ummah, yeah. And his focus was also quliat,
the higher objectives of law, the higher objectives of language in language, maqasib in law, maqasib in language. He wrote a great commentary on Alphia, right. But in that he did not discuss the he talked about furu’ but his aim was focusing on quliat and he wanted to compile the work about nafsia, quliat tasawuf, okay. But he was not able to do that he sees a really interesting thing in muafaqat. The great legal work of Shatibi says: the Arabic words are of different types, we know the category of an nas, nas in Arabic can have a general meaning. Text or the eye of Quran, but this is a this technically it means a word which has only one meaning. It's definitive, he says in the Quran in our texts primarily the Quran and the Hadith. This category a word which has only one meaning is either non-existent or rare really.
so this shows the diversity in the text itself, how can we we should cherish diversity because the wahi is diverse, and the practice of the Prophet saw, as I said we have this famous hadith of Bunu Quraiba and this is happening in in back Warfare, yeah.
Explain the Hadith to us
The famous Hadith recorded by Imam al-bukhari and others after the battle of Azhad, warfare the prophet is teaching the Ummah the principles of civilization, how to engage how to understand things. Bunu Quraiba is the Jewish tribe which practiced treachery against the prophet saw. I will not go into the story The Hadith, says the Prophet saw said to the sahaba, no one from you should pray Asr except when you reach the fortresses of Banu Quraiba.
This is the Hadith.
He's sending the battle group to Banu Quraiba.
Because they reached the agreement, okay, yeah.
But the point here is he did not explain it, he said you you pray Asr you have to reach the fortresses of Banu Quraiba. Okay now the time of Asr came while they were going there and they in in the middle of the journey what should they do. Quran the principle says pray on time yes.
They said, the sahaba disagreed. One jamaah they said: we will pray when we reach The Fortress of Banu Quraiba even if that means praying after
Isha, we don't care because the Prophet saw, we will stick to the literal meaning,
the letter of the law.
Right, so they may miss the Salah, but I will stick with letter of the command, letter of the apparent meaning, yes. Another group they said no, the
Prophet did not mean this now this is going into the spirit of the law, let's apply about, understanding the Prophet was not focusing on salatul Asr, the Prophet meant we should reach Banu Quraiba quickly, quickly.
Before they do something which harms us, to make haste, haste reach there quickly, right. So, he did not mean that we should pray now, because we stick to the Usool of the Quran. Now they applied ijtihad, this is the first instance of ijtihad practiced by the sahaba. When the news reached the Prophet saw, the Prophet did not rebuke anyone, the Prophet could have said you're right and you're wrong. He did not he acknowledged and this is happening in the battle, the Prophet is teaching the sahaba principles of understanding right. Diversity importance of diversity
That's very very interesting, so that then leads to a discussion about the ethics or the adab of the… the way in which we disagree. So, again today we often
have major disagreements based on our opinion, and we fall out, I mean on social media you will notice that people often fall out one another based on these thick heat disagreements, right so did the scholars delineate what the appropriate others should be when we have differences of opinion.
We have a whole genre a particular genre of literature in this masala really the other manuals of ikhtilaf, books really books and the scholars, they discuss this in the science of Usool al Fiqh, when they talked about ijtihad and ikhtilaf, how to disagree, yes. We cannot go into the details; however we can say that it revolves around the classification of disagreement, right. We should not disagree in the principles of Islam, and even if we disagree how to engage with it, right for example the muhadithun, they differentiate between in bida’a, innovation clear innovation, narrator is an innovator, should we accept his narration or not. The engage, the modern Muslim would say how come we reject him he's a maybe a kafir. The muhadithun say nom we don't accept it they say no we will see is he a caller to his Innovation or not if he calls to his Innovation will not accept, his narration.
So like if he's a public…
Yeah… if he preaches to us but if this bida’a and it's established bida’a, and there are principles for that. Is specific with him he's a not he's not a caller to his with bida’a, yes yes. We will accept his narration, and Imam al-bukhari accepted really. So, the classification of ikhtilaf, we should not disagree indefinitive matters. They call it “” the matters which are known in our religion by necessity and in fact the darura term is from logic, yes. And common Muslims don't realize it, classifying knowledge into dharuri and nadhari is from logic with the rulers necessity… Definitive, yeah. Like salah, basic ibadat, basic rituals is public life, culture we have basic ahkam in that, we should not disagree yeah in other areas we can’t, we shouldn't disagree, the question is not about should we or should not; we should because: diversity, yes. We should cultivate it and produce see the form we produced in Aqeeda, in fiqh, in language, if they had never disagreed or disagreement if they had not taken it as a principle they would never… they would never produce such a legacy.
We have, and forgive me for my oversimplification here but we have
in our Islamic culture we have we have mujtahideen, we have mujtahidds, and we have you know people who follow and people who derive the jurisprudence, you know, the the scholars who derived the jurisprudence. Now,
I often wonder whether it is the responsibility of the muqallid, so like myself, who you know, my Islamic learning is very rudimentary… I you know I I wouldn't never be able to or not never is, the wrong word I'm I'm not able to to derive the ruling from the text would it be possible for me to disagree with someone on a matter of fiqh, even if I can't derive that opinion myself or should I stay silent on a matter if someone for example said well, this is my opinion am I allowed to engage with them and debate with them about their opinion, or is that a useless activity for me as a muqalit.
Before we answer this question we have to understand the the classifications: mujtahidd and muqallid. Mustaheed is a Muslim Scholar who practices ijtihad, okay. Now we're gonna go into the details yeah. It will take time but generally speaking what mujtahidd does is he applies his usool, he has principles of extracting the ahkam from the book of Allah, and soon of the messenger saw, yeah. And we have the scholars have talked about the conditions of a mujtahidd, so we can summarize these conditions or the area of mujtahiddin into three: we can say a mujtahidd engages with the texts right; he has methodology to understand the texts, and he knows all the tools required in that process yes. A mujtahidd knows the reality in which he lives, yeah, and this is very important, because in other times we are disconnected from the reality. So, there's some social scientist coming, the mustaheed of other times if he does not know Western social sciences ijtihad will not be accepted, really, he must know the reality we're living in; number three he must have actually practiced ijtihad implemented. So and a muqalab is a Muslim who follows a mujtahidd, particularly if the ijtihad of a particular specific mujtahidd it has turned into a legal system. The Hanafi madhab is not only ijtihad of Imam abu Hanifa, or Shafi’I, or the four schools, yeah. It has turned into a legal system nurtured by great legal minds, collective madhahib. So, technically speaking sometimes an opinion is not the opinion of the Imam this is really interesting. So a muqalib should follow a mujtahidd principal, but we're living in times of information explosion, yes. Not knowledge is everywhere, yeah. And this is from from the signs of the last day. The prophet sws in some narrations, yes “the pen or the information will will be everywhere”. So muqalib can raise himself, right. Discuss, debate, we should do that. That's why al-munathara, we talked about debate, the element of munathara. Again, this is this has to do with the diversity, ikhrilaf. Munathara, the science of argumentation was always connected with Usul al fiqh. A legacy, yes. When discussing about the the knowledge methodologies adopted in the eastern part of the Muslim world and the western part of the Muslim World. they said: the eastern part, was more profound, the methodology was better. because they practiced the the method of munathara, of debating, debate really. So, munathara is also connected with this. Yes, we can do that it's not a problem but when it comes to practically applying your deen: you have to pray five times; you have to give zakah you have to engage in dealings… Jihad, public life, political life. you must have a valid ijtihad, yes. You cannot just engage with the text without knowing the methodology yeah. So a muqalib can raise himself, that's why we have a middle category which was proposed, I think it needs more research it was proposed by some scholars in the subcontinent. They say myabi’, a follower, between muqalib and mujtahid. Who has been raised a bit he can understand the evidences can engage but its engagement must be defined the area must be defined so that it doesn't become intellectual anarchy yeah.
So that's very interesting so you can be a muqalib, follower yet raise yourself to a level where you can appreciate how right how thick opinion has been have been derived and so you can engage in discussions about those opinions okay that's that's very that's a very good…
I want to add another place which is beneficial in creating Islamic civilization in our age really, engaging in the discussion about opinions. Better than, and more important that that is to engage with and understand how the scholars extracted those opinions and engaging with the methodology so that it can enlighten our minds, so that we can learn how they used to think. We have lost this thinking process yeah so it's not only about that sit and discuss about the four madhahib like in prayer for example. We have coming yeah so should it be six takbirat or
Twelve. Let's discuss Hadith from both sides, opinions, this is good? okay but again reductionist method. Let's talk about how, what are the principles they used, the principles of language the ugly principles rational principles they used. The principles based on Quran and Sunnah. How, how did they think what are the alerts. What are the reasons behind adopting a particular opinion so that eventually we have to pray Eid ul Adha, salat-ul eid, and it will be either six or whatever. But this will enhance our thinking we'll be able to think and produce mujtahideen in our times. This is our problem, we are not thinking anymore.
I wanted to ask you about that because do we really have mushtahideen in our times. I mean you know we we often have scholars very reputable good scholars, but they tend to echo the opinions of the former madahib, or you know some very notable Scholars of the past. Do we really have this level of independent thinkers who are able to derive hukum from the text today?
Again, this will depend on how we define a mujtahidd. Okay. If you define a mujtahidd in a reductionist manner. Because we're experiencing reductionist thinking in everything, yeah. If you define mujtahidd as a person who knows four madhahib, he knows the Usool, he has excelled Arabic language, we have. Maybe we have a minority of this, but we have. But if a mujtahidd is a polymath, a great scholar who fulfills these conditions. Let's take two conditions only: number one: who understands the texts in a profound manner, he has Usool of understanding the texts and understanding the reality. Do we really have scholars to understand the reality? Right. I don't think so, but we can have in other times if the reality has become so complex and big, we can practice ijtihad, we have to break ijtihad. This is possible scholars have talked about it.
Explain that to me
Tajdid al ijtihad is when we have a bunch of scholars, we have an institution, right. They sit together, yes; they are from different areas of expertise they Stitch it together and engage, understand the reality and come up with a solution
so we can we can divide it into areas, because the reality in my opinion has become too complex.
Do you think AI, Artificial Intelligence could one day replace a mujtahid.
Allahu alam, I don't know, but maybe yes. I don't think it will replace a mujtahidd because it depends on how AI works. I'm not an expert in this field but the creative imagination of a human being can never be replaced wa Allahu alam. Because this is unique with a human being, yes. That's why when logicians define a human being yeah, what do they say? they say is a hayawan natiq. He’s a Hayawan, animal, but natiq, natiq here refers to aql. So, this faculty of intellect and using it, and the creative creativity Allah has kept in it is unique.
I'm very sorry I'm moving away from our central topic of unity and disunity today but I find what you're saying very fascinating. Can I ask a question about mujtahiddin today.If a mujtahidd came along and said I'm going to differ from all of the established madhahib. I'm going to differ with the opinions of the majority of the scholars, but here's my rationale here's what I believe is a new fiqh on salah or fiqh on zakah, or fiqh on mu’milat, transactions. Would we reject such a person or should we embrace such a person.
Again, it depends on how we define ijtihad, coming back to the definitions because ijtihad or mujtahiddun are two types. This is very famous in our thought.
Mughllaq and muqaiyat. Mujtahidd mughlaq is a mujtahid that has his own usool. So this means new usool. I don't think so personally yeah and the who talked about closing the gates of ijtihad. Some of them were muhadhithun, great jurists like Imam ibnu-salah. He is from the early scholars who talked about closing the gates of mujtahidd mughlaq, because what they meant was a marhala, a stage which has ended. So for example…
The absolute mujtahid who develops their own Usool, they felt that stage was over.
No, develops is a really tricky word. Because we have the term tadween, yes. The Usool were already there, in the book of Allah, sunnah of the Prophet sws, practice of the sahaba. They creatively engaged with this Usool, and codified it yeah. We can say. So, for example, we cannot disagree with grammar, can we?... Alhamdulillahi, If you say I will not read it as lillahi, we cannot because this was a Marhala, grammar has been codified right. So, if the stage has ended, now what we have is ijtihad in the light of the Usool, which have been codified, okay. But
there is difference between the alihtimal afli’, the actual possibility. Something is possible aqlan, rationally but does it happen. So we can embrace if we have a scholar who comes with new Usool, but we will we will not accept him without judging him. He has to give strong evidence, because this is a religion of evidence so at least is possible rationally it's possible. But does it actually happen? I don't think so.
Shaykh Shuayb, I know we've spoken a lot today about the jurisprudence differences that exist within the Muslims and, and that's primarily because you're an Islamic scholar and I would really appreciate your views on this. But of course many Muslims today are not disunified necessarily by their Islamic opinions they're unified by political systems, they're unified by ethnicity by nationality um can you shed some light on what Islam says about these sorts of divisions. In particular nationalism and ethnic divisions that seem to divide the Ummah in very big way today.
Islam appreciates again the diversity. We're talking about the diversity. Islam appreciates ethnicities, different nations, yeah. Maybe not nationalism as an ideology. Different races, yes. And as I said, we have al ‘urf, as a principle evidence, evidence of law, appreciating the custom of different peoples and
it is used as a tool of interpretation. In the time of the Prophet sws, he himself appreciated the different divisions, and the divide was very intrinsic. Division into tribes, ethnicities in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Prophet sws worked to dismantle the tribes.
No, he did not dismantle, he engaged, okay. Cultivated it yes. So we have almuhajiroon, al Ansar. Why do you think in the battle of the trench, the Prophet sws attributed Salman Al Farsi himself when he suggested this great plot, Salman is Persian, he attributed the Prophet sws, said … which means ahlul bait, the family of the Prophet has value as a tribe yes, and after the prophet sws, the idea of quraish khulafa being from Quraish, and as I said Islamic civilization its spread across across the spectrum, engaged everyone. So, I don't think we have problem of racism as a hurdle, we may have some manifestations. But this problem depends on primarily the identity, identity of a human being is it intrinsic.
to his nature or a construct. We don't have any identity in the modern world in the first place. How will we disagree on our on our identities if we had, the Ummah had diverse identities and then we were disagreeing, it would be logical, but we don’t have, we have to search for the identity, so the Prophet sws in the battles also he would maintain this division of mahajirun and ansar, this is very famous. He did not dismantle it, we don't need to dismantle it. It is in the nature of human beings it cannot be dismantled right. And the qabaliya qaumiya which the Prophet sws criticized in the ahadith, is when you turn it into something which damages your worldview. So, what we said is we have all these constructs, divisions, diversity but if we discover a higher principle it will dissolve everything if we don't have this higher principle raison d’etre, a vision, a mission. We will not be able to dissolve.
So, what I'm getting from you is that, you know, a creative Ummah will harness these divisions in inverted commons and use them for good according to an Islamic mission rather than try to dismantle these. Often we find especially this is in the West we find that many second generation, third generation Muslims say that the big problem in the Muslim Ummah is our cultural differences, you know our we have these cultures and these, they're inherited from our previous generations, and these cultures they cause divisions between us and then they may cause divisions. But your argument is that Islam did not come to eradicate those cultures is that a is that a fair assumption. Okay.
We may have some cultural practices, which are problems, which are problems. But Islam, when it entered different areas and nations and islamized the cultures, yeah. islamized if I can use this is a philosophical town pretty modern used by some great Muslim thinkers. Islamized language, islamized cultures islamized thinking patterns of those people. Particularly the Nations who they they had different cultural Backage; the Romans the Persians, Indian subcontinent the
Malay world. So, Islam islamizes, does not eradicate, does not destroy yeah.
So this is a very important matter, which we must understand.
There is also a discussion about almost say, an opinion in the Muslim Ummah that we can never really recover our position ever again, like we're doomed to disunity. Our situation now is like the Greek civilization, once amazing empire, civilization. Today, you know, Greece is not… it's a fatal economy for a long period of time. It's said it's managed its decline, and now it's just a ordinary nation-state. Is that type of thinking problematic, and how do we remove or extricate ourselves from that way of thinking.
This is not the appropriate way of thinking, according in the Islamic perspective. As I said, in my opinion we are not disunited, we lack something higher by which we can dissolve these divisions, or we can creatively engage with these divisions yes. So we talked about theorizing, we don’t have a mujtahiddun who can theorized for us. Create an economic system based on Islamic principles, a political system so we are at the receiving end, this is our problem. We are lost if I can use Arabic terminology, because this is connected with our world view. Terminology is important the Ummah is undergoing three conditions: ikhtibbar, test for its survival in the modern challenges, the modern, the the modern reality; alikhtimar, literally fermentation and this is something positive; we have the nabif the the date juice it becomes into khamar, haram. The juice is halal, khamar is haram, and then the same thing turns into vinegar, which is also Halal. Something beneficial yeah. The Ummah is in the middle if we use a philosophical construct. If ikhtimar, some scholars have used it. I'm picking from there ikhtimar, fermenting, fermentation, yes, proving yes, preparing, okay. And it depends how we engage. And al-Tiih, intellectual wandering, this term has been used with the greatest Ummah before us banu Israel… Lost they were, lost in the desert, lost in what does it mean in the desert they didn't have any culture? they had, they had families they had kids; generations yeah. Everything was in place, perhaps a difficult life in the desert. They were lost in their mission when they left, Allah swt delivered them from the slavery of firaun not to live in the desert, but for a mission to reach the promised land, they lost that sense of togetherness, they lost that raison d’etre. And yet 40 years until the old generation was replaced
with the new generation right; we are undergoing the same intellectual Tiih, we can call it in Arabic, ikhtibar, ikhtimar and Tiih. This defines, in my opinion the present condition of the Ummah.
You seem to be very hopeful about our present situation but everyone you speak to or most people I speak to would say, you know, we are in the worst place we can ever be as a as an Ummah and as a civilization, contrast explain that to me what what…why do I get from me whenever I ask you a tricky question your
response is actually quite positive. I'm trying to find any negativity in your responses. I explain your world view and where this is coming from.
I don't agree with this thinking, yeah. We are living in challenging times, our Ummah is weak, yeah. But if we compare if you read the history, the only
difference is that those times were not recorded. Now everything is recorded history, the Mongols, the sack of Baghdad, the tension between the sahaba, the battles, what can be worst? and I'm hopeful because we're believers, and if you understand the Sunnah of Allah, the Divine patterns of Allah and the patterns of History yeah particularly our own history based on our own worldview worldview right. We'll always have hope. See for example we have this Hadith it means the Prophet sws made dua to Allah. Three duas, two were accepted, one was rejected. Famous Hadith, he said. he he made Dua Allah don't destroy this
Ummah like the destruction of the previous nations yes, a complete annihilation, destruction yeah. Don't destroy them by gharraq, by drowning them like the flood of Nuh a.s, and don't create discord and disunity amongst them. Allah accepted the two rejected, the third, okay. Why did Allah reject the third, famous Hadith. Disunity is important, until the destruction is perfected, we cannot rise, and remember a couple of the great poet and philosopher of the East Mohammad Iqbal, he says in Urdu, he says: the earthquake causes complete destruction, to understand the rise and fall of civilizations, this is very deep, he says like earthquake destroys, it destroys the mountains, it destroys everything, it turns them into clouds, complete destruction. But the same earthquakes they cause new valleys, with fresh streams, so I think this is we should be
more hopeful. Because we have reached a point where we will rise again. Until you fall you cannot rise. So he says the fresh streams will flow, and after that he says: for every new construction necessitates complete and perfect destruction until it happens and this is an ideology, we can disagree about the details. All the problems, the civilizational problems, this is the hal, and this is the solution that you understand this matter. And this applies to individuals, this applies to civilizations. so this is a very deep couplet so I’m hopeful that Ummah will rise and we believe the Prophet sws has has given us the good news. However we should only understand to engage, how to understand the reality around us how to rise, work according to our capabilities, dissolve these small divisions and differences. like Allah swt said: the roots must be firm, if we have a raison d'etre, we have a principle, we have the higher goals, we have the vision. These things will remain there, every civilization has. So I'm always hopeful, but it does not mean that we should not reflect on our weaknesses, we should reflect, we should introspect yes introspection is also intrinsic to everyday civilization.
I would like to raise one last point; it's been fascinating you know you’re your responses today and I've learned so much from how you’ve responded to my questions. There is again an opinion that our problems are so great it can only really be resolved by Imam Mahdi, by a leader who is going to unify us and until then we are really destined you know to to manage our our decline. I mean how would you respond to that type of understanding.
this misunderstanding is based on missing the correct understanding of the term change. Change is not an incident, change is the process and when we reflect on the texts about Imam al Mahdi, most of these texts they talk about the battle, the political role. So according to my personal opinion, he will be a political leader it would be, maybe a culmination of the authority of the Ummah. But there's nowhere in Quran and Sunnah, that we cannot rise before that we will not have any upliftment of the Ummah before that. I don't know, so al Imam al-mahdi
is is his coming and the role of the second coming of Isa a.s. This is
narrated but before that we have texts which speak about khilafa, which speak about the rise of the Ummah we must appreciate those texts also, we must understand all these texts together. So I don't think that before Imam this this is basically again a pessimistic engagement with the matters of the Ummah so we wait for a person to come and change our situation, and this person when he will come he will come in the juncture when the Ummah has already changed in many matters, because change does not come but only political political authority we have a leader. For example, if we have the best leader now, loyal to Islam, like the sahaba and he takes the position of a of of the leader in any country, what will he change? the economic systems that the the political… it will take time. So I don't think the change will happen on ground and at the top level as well.
So we must be optimistic jazzakAllah khayr, you very much for your for your time today shaykh.
Barak Allahu fikum. May Allah swt accept our efforts and grant us sincerity,
all right and make these, all these engagements fruitful inshaAllah.
And we must invite you back to talk about Iqbal more I think.
InshaAllah, InshaAllah, if Allah permits, we will InshaAllah.