Hamzah Wald Maqbul – 23 Ramadan 1441 Late Night Majlis Ghazali And Kalam Addison 05162020
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
So we continue our reading from Mawlana Seid
Abu Hasan Ali Nadui,
his saviors of the Islamic spirit,
about the life and times of Imam
Ghazali
in this Mubarak 23rd,
night of Ramadan. May Allah
give its barakah to us and write us
from amongst the those who were forgiven
and, manumitted from the hellfire in this Mubarak
night. And, may he,
give us
and may he give us Ramadan after Ramadan,
last asha after last asha,
after after
as a means of our salvation and our
forgiveness and increase in rank in this world
and the hereafter.
Amin.
And so
we got to the point where
Mohan Alimiya is talking about,
Al Ghazali and the dialecticians
and the dialecticians.
Dialectics here when he when the translator uses
the word dialectics, he's talking about ilmuqalam
which is, I think a fairly,
good translation in the sense that it literally
seems to mean about the same thing as
what Kalam means,
and it does convey convey the the sense
of, like,
scholastic theology
or,
some sort of, like, semantic wrangling.
And,
the the meaning here is this is what?
Is that
Greek philosophy,
Aristotelian
logic,
and a number of foreign
ideas,
not only crept into the,
crept into the intellectual discourse of Islam Islam
but, you know, people accepted Islam from a
number of different nations
which is to be expected and it's actually
a good thing and so they brought a
number of attitudes, a number of modes of
learning, a number of ways of thinking about
things, a number of ways of dealing with
problems,
practical and intellectual with them
and
there was a need to, I guess,
sort out, refine,
validate
and,
expel,
you know, whatever that basket of stuff was.
Because Islam is not necessarily,
you know, there to
completely destroy everything else.
Rather,
it is a Muhammed, you know, the Quran
is a Muhammed. It is an overseer
that will,
you know,
will be
there to take everything that's good and subsume
it and,
expel and reject everything that's false and protect
the Muslims from its harm.
So,
you know, the, you know, the the Il
Muqalam was developed essentially as
a
defense mechanism by the,
Ahlul Haqq against the Muartazila
rationalist philosophers,
and a number of other a number of
other, heretical groups
that will start to comment about a number
of things,
that were not really controversial in the history
of Islam in the in its earlier part,
particularly in the era of the companions
and their,
and in the eras of their successors.
And so,
you know, like,
the development of Nahu,
of of of kind of analytical grammar,
like the development of a number of different
branches of learning.
Nahla Sunnah basically will learn,
and master these branches of learning that are
not strictly speaking,
from the revealed sciences,
and they will use
them in order to refute,
the heretical claims made
by the people of heresy,
through them because the people of heresy also
used them. They used analytical grammar,
which was not something that the Arabs needed
to rely upon because they, you know, will
last like, you know, the told
me
attributed to
not a a grammarian.
Because Imam
Malik is Asbahi. He's a an Arab of
Himyarite,
origin.
He's he says he says that I'm not
a grammarian whose tongue trips, you know, like,
in an an an an
an an he said I'm not a a
a grammarian whose tongue trips.
Rather I'm a man of style and what
I say is Arabic.
And so like what happens is later on,
this analytical grammar is used in order to
try to justify different,
meanings from the text of the Quran
and, Ulamad Sunnah learned the analytical grammar and
master it and,
they then refute
the people of heresy on their own terms
and the Aristotelian logic is much like that.
And philosophy is much like that as well
that the ulama of the sunnah will learn,
these arts and they will then argue against
the people of heresy
using the ground rules of these arts who
are which are sound,
fundamentally sound. Not necessarily part of Revelation but
they're rationally sound.
And,
you know, they will then use it to
defend the hack.
And except for
there's a bit of a controversy amongst the
olema
in that process which is, some of the
the issues regarding,
issues regarding,
creed and regarding aqidah,
are issues of
where the people of the of heresy and
of Zayiv will,
give a particular
interpretation to something that's not really supposed to
be interpreted,
but it's supposed to be taken for formulaically.
And so there's a jama'ah of the Muhammadun,
who,
you know, who who are against that, who
say that you shouldn't talk about these things
and you shouldn't argue about these things and
just active giving interpretations to these things is,
problematic
and, whoever does so, let them deal with,
let them the consequences with Allah on their
own terms.
Whereas then the Asha'aira and the Maturidiya,
and the Maturidiya,
I think there's a very strong argument to
be made that the founder of the Maturidi
School of Kalam is not, Abdul Mansur al
Maturidi. He is the the one who orders
it and compiles it.
But, the founder of the school is is
is very you know, it seems to me
very clearly it's Imam al Hanifa himself,
But,
at any rate, there are those who will
vehemently
disagree with that. No no no problem. No
bother.
But the idea is this, is that
basically the
the schools of, the Mutakallimun or the sunnah,
they said this, is that look, yes, we
agree with you in principle. People should not
comment about the mote shabbihat and, you know,
talk about
more further and speculative
branches of creed. However, the problem is this
is that, after given that we're not supposed
to, you know, delve into them, there are
a group of people who have not only
delved into them, but they have ruined
the way that the public thinks about them
and that ruined,
way of thinking about it is like our
friend Tony, the dead dog, whose carcass is
bloating in the in the well. And, you
know, we would have preferred not to have
to do this but now that the carcass
is in the well, we have to retrieve
it out first before we can
clean the the the well, afterward.
And so they will argue, and basically use
this Ilmocollam, use the same machinery,
philosophy and Aristotelian logic and, whatnot
in order to not necessarily
speculate about what our belief is
but, more particularly
demonstrate how,
the heterodox beliefs of the Martesila,
and those people who are behind them,
in rank. Martezyla did a really good job
at heterodoxy.
Others not so good.
I say they did a good job in
the sense that their arguments were much more
refined than many of the other like botanies
and things like that. But, at any rate,
that the,
you know, they use this machinery in order
to show that the
the arguments made by them are
are not even the best arguments that could
be made, much less the correct ones.
And so, you know, there's been some controversy
in the ummah amongst the different groups of
the Ahlus Sunnah as to whether or not
this is, this was a good idea or
not. And there are some very hard line
people who say, well, you know, the people
who take up the Ilm ul Kalam are
not from Ahlson at all, and vice versa.
And I think that's a bit of an
exaggeration in excess. You cannot, I
I don't think that's that's a that's a
fair,
thing to say. But since this is not
Apti Hadar, we're not gonna talk about that
in too much detail,
but, just to give, the listener enough to
be able to, I guess, digest what's about
to be talked about right now.
So Mullana Alimiya says he says a man
of Ghazali's outstanding intellectual gifts could continue to
tread the beaten path of earlier,
Mutakkal Limun.
He could not continue to tread the beaten
path of early Mutakkal Limun nor could he
be content with the position of a mere
commentator.
Meaning that he wasn't he wasn't happy with
the status quo.
Unfortunately, the science of kalam which had or
dialectics which had been evolved for the defense
of religion,
which had, to keep itself abreast with current
developments and other branches of learning had lost
its vigor by the end of 4th century
after Hijra.
The Asha'aris,
of the time had taken,
to the path of rigid dogmatism,
insisting on the acceptance,
not only simply of their tenets and beliefs
but also on the canons divided, devised by
Abu Hassan al Ashaari and Abu Bakr al
Baqilani,
without the slightest modification or improvement.
They considered it heretical to employ a logical
syllogism not
used by the earlier teachers of their school
for the defense of religion.
And this isn't by the way, this is
not a, you know,
Moana Alimiya is not,
you know, slamming the Ash'aira.
Rather, he's talking about later,
hyper dogmatic Ash'aira who start to
make the,
the
peculiar culture of the Ash'ari school into,
basically,
the
defining factor of who's on guidance and who's
not, which is in its patently,
against even the methodology of the imam of
the school, given that,
Ahlus Sunnah defines itself as being the dean
of the Sahaba radiAllahu anhu and,
you know, arguing with,
in a particular way definitely wasn't part of
that din,
at least in its refined form.
They considered it heretical to employ logical syllogism
not used by their earlier
teachers, for the defense of religion. Ghazali
pressed his knowledge of philosophy for upholding the
religious beliefs and dogmas and indeed devised an
entirely new canon for rational
exposition of these matters,
which was more effective than the arguments of
previous
in regards to matters like divine attributes, prophethood,
miracles, religious practices, punishments and rewards in the
hereafter,
and the day of judgment, he brought forth
entirely new arguments more convincing to a rational
mind than those employed by his predecessors.
He did, in fact, lay the foundations of
a scientific scholastic system thus infusing a new
blood into the old Ash'ari school.
The modified doctrines of the Ash'ari school,
eventually became, thanks to Ghazali, the most popular
system of scholasticism in the entire Islamic world.
But since Ghazali held divergent views from Ash'ari
and other eminent scholars of that school on
several issues, many ardent followers
of the Ash'arid school, looked down upon Ghazali's
thought with misgivings and disfavor. Some of the
Ash'ari zealots even accused Ghazali of breaking away
from the orthodox faith and adopting heretical tenets.
Again, this is not, you know, this is
not like
those who we consider Ash'aira
today or
traditionally through history. But,
every every mother has its like fanatics
and haters.
And so he's talking about the fanatics
and haters of of of the day.
You know,
and that's that's that's true for every that's
true for every
madhab. The madhab are all,
attempts to understand and to make reason and
to make usul and principles,
that guide a person's practice of the deen
of Islam and sunnah,
whether they be in fiqh or in in
aqidah or in other things. And, there are
always every generation has some people get caught
up in the details and they kind of
miss the bigger picture.
After the compilation of the hiya, the, some
of the Ash'ari scholars became so critical of
Ghazali that one of his friends wrote a
letter to invite his attention toward the matter.
Ghazali
explained the position,
in some detail in a booklet,
with the title of
Islam. He writes in it, dear brother, a
group of people envious of me is busy
in censuring my writings. For in their opinion,
I have expounded views contrary to those held
by the teachers, of old or the founders
of, the scholastic school. They think that even
the slightest deviation from the orthodox,
Ashadi tenets,
is blasphemous.
I know that you are unhappy over it
but my dear friend, you ought to observe
patience in the miss in this matter. How
can I claim immunity from the jealousy of
these people when even the Rasool sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam was not spared by these elements?
That person is such a, is simply a
blind follower of illiberal formalism,
who holds that any disagreement with,
Ash'ari Muertazi, Hanbalayt, or for that matter, any
other sect is heretical. It is of no
use trying to waste your time in satisfying
them. In fact, their own pleas against, one
another are sufficient to confute them. There are
numerous differences in the various scholastic schools and
many of, these differ from the Ash'aris. Therefore,
if anyone claims that it is incumbent on
someone to follow the Ash'ari tenets to the
last detail or even that the slightest deviation
from his doctrines is unsanctified. He ought to
be asked how he deems,
the Asharis to be the, sole repository of
truth. If it is so, would he be
willing to declare Ba'Tilani an apostate? Because Ba'Tilani
also differed from Ash'ari on the question of
the eternal attributes of divinity, for he denied
the existence of any such attribute apart from
the being of God.
But the question is why should Bakhtalani at
all be condemned as an apostate for opposing
Ash'ari? Why should not the same charge be
leveled against Ash'ari for differing from and why
should truth be considered to be the monopoly
of any particular individual?
If their reply be that Ash'ari preceded Batilani,
then did not the Muertazilites,
precede Ash'ari?
Therefore,
they not be deemed to be on the
right path? If it is claimed that righteousness
depends on profound knowledge and piety, then what
would the criteria to judge
comparative merits of the expounders of different schools
be? If Batilani was allowed to differ from
Ash'ari, then why should those after him be
debarred from this right and why should any
particular person be accorded a special treatment in
this matter?
So you see, Masha'Allah, Ghazalih Rahimullah Ta'ala, he
he he goes in he goes in, first
with a,
an observation about human nature
and, the intractability of fanatics.
But, you know, Masha'Allah,
just so that a person doesn't think that
he's playing the adab card, he he very
quickly scuttles the entire,
the entire argument of his haters,
on purely rational terms which make, you know,
which make very good sense. And one of
the things I want people to realize because
many people now afterward, you know, Ghazali becomes
the
becomes the
dogmatic orthodoxy that they will,
you know, blindly defend. And if you wanna
defend Ghazali and orthodoxy, that's wonderful. I think
that's great, you know. Read him and understand
him, that's how you're gonna defend him. Shouting
down his opponents is not how you're gonna
defend them because look, he himself here is
against this type of dogmatic
and close minded
taqleed or close minded,
like blind following of anybody after the prophet
and I think this is really important for
the listeners to understand which is what?
We do taqleed of our imams.
Why? Because we've come to the conclusion that
those Imams are the people who had the
most deep and profound knowledge of,
of these matters and so we choose them
to follow them based on knowledge,
not because we consider them to be
or
whatever.
And,
the taqleed of aalam,
the accepting of
a particular imam to be an imam in
a school, of an alim,
is based on understanding. It has to be
based on understanding. And so, Ghazali himself here
is
condemning,
blind imitation
and the blind imitators of his day.
This is, of course,
something which is, a letter he's writing to
one of his colleagues from the ulama class.
And so, like, you know, if you're just
sitting on Facebook and Twitter and being like,
I don't know how to follow Abu Hanifa
and Malik or whatever. Like, okay, that's kind
of like silly and dumb. That's like, we're
not talking about that right now. But within
the class of the ulama, within the classes
of scholars, those people spent their years. I
mean, they You know, nowadays, when we have
people walking around, boasting about having a Ijazah
and Tajweed or whatever or like people asking,
hey, Sheikh, can I have a Ijazah and
the tahawiyah? I wanna teach in such and
such place. No. We have people who we're
not talking about them. We're talking about those
people who have put in their, you know,
years and studied like, you know, 1, 2,
3 beginning, intermediate, advanced books
in Arabic grammar and then, you know, they
know their memorize their salaf charts and they,
learn their, you know, beginning Mu'tasarat
compendia of fiqh and then they read the
detailed works of fiqh and then they've read
the
the the debates, of the differences of opinion
of the fiqhaha and they've read a hadith
both ri'aatan and dira'aatan and, you know, like,
both in the its transmission and chains of
narration as well as in the meanings of
of the hadith. They've read the tafsir and
the usula tafsir, you know. They've read all
of these different branches of learning for several
years.
Now, those people when they get to a
certain level, for them, it's, you know, it's
it's really silly for them to then,
blindly imitate,
a particular personage after the prophet
and even those people who we consider to
be imams in in the deen. Mufti Saeed
Ahmad Balinpourid,
the the head Mudaras of give him a
long life and
Afiya,
really wonderful individual.
And,
you know, for anybody who wants to have
their nafs busted down a couple of notches,
I mean, he's become a little softer now
in his later years, but boy,
he, he he was a guy who would,
you know, you could sit with him and
really feel like not not not very learned.
But, Allah Ta'ala,
raise his rank and Allah Ta'ala protect him
from from every evil in this world and
the hereafter. He mentioned this in one of
his bands and I think he mentions it
in a number of different places. He says
that that the word taqleid itself, right, in
the Arabic language means like a necklace. Right?
So the word taqleid is is to give
the necklace to somebody else. So, imagine for
example,
if someone is the champion of your people,
then what you do? You give them the
medal. You put the medal in their neck,
right? That's what taqlid is. He says, he
says that some people imagine
is like putting a leash in your own
neck and being led around like,
an animal. He said just a fundamental understanding
of Sarf would tell you that
the the, you know, the word to express
that, the expression to to express that meaning
is not taqlid, it's taqalud. That you yourself
chain yourself up by the neck with a
rope and then give the leash to somebody.
It's not giving the leash, not it's not
leashing yourself and giving the the the the
leash to somebody. What is it? It's looking
through the different alama after your study and
understanding and and recognizing that someone is actually
worthy of being taken as an imam and
saying that this is this person is an
authority. Even then, Ghazal
Ghazal is saying that we have the right
to,
we have the right to, you know, discuss,
understand, see what works and what works better
and what works less, better
and,
you know, you know,
try to make sense of all of these
things.
And,
you know, that's something that I think a
lot of people who, hate on the Madhavs
will attribute to the Madhavs. But here's Ghazali
who's a great muhaqqek of the Shafi'i school
and he is even greater muhaqqek of the,
Ash'ali school in in Aqidah
and,
just
an imam in in Tasawwuf, imam in all
of all of these different fields.
And what is he saying? He's like, he
he he's saying that we're, look we're not
we're not blind followers. We're not blind imitators
of people after the prophet
and,
I think that's a little bit different than
the the standard script of like, you know,
of, like, you know,
back and forth,
misguided
and ignorant
debates about Madahib and about the ulama and
about the tradition that happened,
in, in, you know, not just, like, in
Philly, you know, but, like, in in all
across social media and really to be honest
with you, in the stuffy,
drawing rooms and,
chai,
conversations
of middle class suburbanite,
uncolacracy.
Not only in in in in America but
in the Muslim world as well where people
talk about, you know, people very,
by the way, usually,
people whose books they've never read or cracked
open. And they have this assumption that they
were just like blind regurgitators
of,
of tradition and that's why, you know, you
know, Muslims somehow
fell behind, you know, whatever colonial powers. The
reason the Muslims fell behind colonial powers is
that at some point or another,
colonial powers become remarkably efficient at killing large
numbers of people and,
economically strangling
others.
That's a problem, to this day. However,
you know, it's this whole idea of some
sort of intellectual decay or whatever. This is
this is a
a a huge over exaggeration.
Ghazali himself, who himself becomes the benchmark of
orthodoxy after his time.
He argues against it as you will find
the great, Mujaddidun,
the great renovators and renewers and masters and
imams of every field and every madhab.
Those who end up becoming, you know, who
have the the metal put in their neck
and are considered imams by the intellectual class
of the Muslims in every generation,
this is a sentiment that they, that they
will,
all share with one another. So, Mullan
Ali Mihai continues,
he comments on this tract, very powerful tract
that was just read from the festival of
Tafrika.
He says, personal experience and a comprehensive insight
into the speculative as well as religious sciences
led the Ghazali to the conclusion that, scholasticism
only has a limited utility which may be
sometimes even harmful in
particular cases. That Ilm Kalam,
it had a very particular utility and it
did a really good job at it and,
Ghazali himself is a great mutakalim and an
imam of Kalam,
but he says that there are some
sides it veers into that that may be
harmful. He ultimately came to regard dialectics as
a medicine which should not be administered to
healthy people who need only adequate nourishment through
their food,
and this, could be provided amply by the
Quran and he maintained that the Quran
contained a superior logic as its arguments are
quite satisfying to the people possessing common sense.
In his last book,
iljamulawam
anilmul kalam,
restraining the commonality of people from the science
of dialectics, Ghazali observes,
the Qur'anic arguments
are like food which provide people with
nourishment, which provide nourishment to everyone while the
logical system built up,
by the dialecticians, the anid mutakalimun,
is similar to a medicine which can be
administered profitably
to only a few and may even have
harmful effects, for others not requiring it. Or
else, the Qur'anic reasoning resembles water which can
be taken both by the weak child and,
a robust youth while dialectical
argumentation is like a rich food which provides
nourishment only to the latter but is indigestible,
and even harmful for small children.
Continuing
on the further,
possible evils of, dialectics, he
writes, the indiscriminate practice of dialectics by its
votaries provides
an irrefutable argument against that science since the
time it was popularized.
It has given itself rises to many evils
which were not found during the time of
the prophet's companions,
alayhi salatu al salam.
So, and this is, you know, this is
the person who understands,
Ilm ul Kalam and its utility,
and maintains,
this,
you know, this stance toward it.
That person, I think, no one in their
right mind has the,
has the right to
accuse such a person of being a heretic.
Rather,
the whole point, the reason of the existence
of Al Muqalam is to
to to argue against heresy on its own
terms.
And therefore, it is a very specialized field,
and it is not considered to be from
the bedrock sciences,
of of of of din or from the,
that knowledge which makes up the backbone of,
of the ilm of the prophet, the ilm
of Wahi, of revelation.
And that being said,
it also gives us an insight into something
else that we, should be,
you know, very,
cognizant of nowadays, which is that there are
many people who
have made a name for themselves either by
debating people of different religions or debating modernism
or liberalism or thisism, thatism, gayism,
you know, rainbowism,
whatever.
All sorts of, you know, modernism, all sorts
of different things. I myself talk about these
issues oftentimes.
But it's important even though there's a rush
of vera and a rush of,
of really adrenaline and, whatever other neurotransmitters
one,
feels when their guy beats up the other
guy.
But, know that that is not what knowledge
is. That is not what the ilm of
the prophet is
when, you know, when we say
the
they're the heirs of the prophets.
That is what? This is the Quran. This
is what Allah says. This is the hadith.
This is what the Rasool salallahu alayhi wa
sallam says. This is how you pray. This
is fiqh. This is how you pray. This
is how you pray. This is how you
fast. This is haram, this is halal,
this is,
so and so's right, this is not so
and so's right.
This is what we believe, this is what
we don't believe, which is
is not Aqidah. We've some people have, you
know, taken the to as synonymous and it's
Mutlaq or maybe even Minwaj, to be honest
with you. That Ilm Kalam is a defense
of the system built up by the Aqidah
of the Muslims,
against those who attack it. But,
that system of defense isn't actually what the
creed of the Muslims is. The creed of
the Muslims is found in the kitab and
sunnah of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam,
and that is what we refer to as
the Athari creed within the study of
within the study of,
of Aqidah. I'm not necessarily attributing it to
the Hanabila or to the Muhandithun even though
we consider them to be from the but
the Athari creed in this context means that
that creed which is taken formulaically and directly
from the book of Allah and from the
sunnah of the prophet
without
ascribing modality to it or or giving it
too much great detail.
And so,
that needs to be done today as well.
There needs to be people who have this
like, strong foundational understanding of the deen
and people who understand the challenges that, are
opposed to Islam and to the Muslims.
And,
the kind of modern world and, the world
around us and the ideas that are in
vogue in it and where,
they are, reconcilable and where they're irreconcilable
and where they need to be separated.
That's one of the take homes that we
should, takeaways that we should take from this.
And the other takeaway is that those people
who are the champions in that, octagon,
in that, intellectual UFC,
that, unless they are actually people who have
mastered the understanding of the Quran and Sunnah,
which is very different than arguing that there's
only 2 genders rather than 17,
You know, some people can do that more
effectively on a college campus than others
but, at the end of the day, that
is
a a a very like
feat but it's not gonna provide guidance to
the ummah.
It's not gonna provide guidance to the ummah.
It is medicine for the sick, but it
is not nourishment for the healthy,
and we should keep all of those things
in mind. May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala raise
amongst
our ummah, a people who are concerned with
this deen more than they are concerned with
the dunya. I'm reminded the hadith of the
prophet in which, the dua for one of
the duas used to ask when a gathering
would be dispersed.
A part of it was
You Allah, if you were to send us
a test and a trial and tribulation,
don't send it to us in our deen,
send it to us in our dunya. And,
you Allah, make our dunya,
don't make our dunya the greatest of our
concerns,
nor the extent of our understanding.
Not of the dunya nor of the deen
for that matter. That don't make the dunya
the extent of our understanding. Not even of
the dunya. The the dunya is not as
the extent of our understanding, even of the
dunya much of our of our deen.
And so we ask
that there are people who are concerned, not
only concerned with the deen, but that they
also are, amongst them. There are a group
of people who understand the dean well enough
and are competent enough, skilled enough, and conversant
enough in the in the,
in the sensibility of this age,
to be able to sift through it and,
keep that which is beneficial.
And there is a lot that's beneficial and
expel that which is harmful or of no
benefit, which there's a lot of fluff as
well.
Meaning 15 out of those 17 genders,
or or or, you know, something like that.
You know, this ever expanding
horizon of
of of of of, you know, of of
genders and of weird ideas and all of
this other stuff. I think you should be
able
to be able to, convince a person,
who is immersed and dyed in the color
of
of this kind of,
anti rational system of thinking that that characterizes,
modernity
or post modernity for that matter, that they
should be able to
argue with it on its own terms successfully
and bring people back to the,
bring people back to the common sense of
guidance. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala give all of
us tufir. Allah accept from us in this
Mubarak night of ramadan.
Allah
give us the tawfeeq to, you know, think
through these problems
and get in where we fit in in
terms of the solution. Some of us may
be,
those who will actually do that. Some of
us will be those who learn,
the subsidiary sciences and teach them to others
so so that's we can facilitate someone else
doing that.
It may be a generational or multi generational
project to be very honest with you.
Because all quality things take time. And if
nothing else, may Allah,
make us from amongst those who make dua
and support,
you know, those people who are doing that
work in word and in deed and in
our hearts and with our pockets and,
you know, with our,
retweets and Facebook shares and relikes and, whatever
and,
and other forms of support.
Allah, subhanahu wa ta, accept from all of
us, a collaborative effort that the Ummah has
to do and we do it together and
may Allah accept it from us together and
may we all end up in Jannah one
day, through the barakah of this noble effort
and service of this noble deen
together.