[Ep. 08] Mind Your Head & Excuse – Managing Our Disagreements

Salam Alaikum Bismillah Alhamdulillah wa salatu salam ala Rasulillah. Welcome back to managing our disagreements. Okay, so these next two episodes, I'm calling the Mind your head, meaning how can we be more thoughtful and more consistent, like methodical on how we react to the different types of differences and disagreements? Because we've been introduced to the four categories, which I've categorized as for just for simplicity purposes. But still, at times, you know, we're not consistent enough in how we go about treating each of these. And so I want to sort of give us a framework on how to proceed with a checklist of sorts. And in that way, we'll have a uniform standard, and also

have some intellectual humility. Where are the stop and go points in these discussions? So Bismillah, here's the framework, mind your head, be careful how you're thinking about it. Number one, is there a difference here of variety or a difference of conflict? Is it a matter where the Dean basically gave us options? In that case, full stop, we have no right to referee between them. In the sense of criticism, they're not right and wrong. They're right and right, leave it alone to a little bit more detail to that go back to the episode but in, in essence, I leave this one alone, period. I accept them all. Then, if we move on and say it is a difference of conflict, there's two

or more clashing views that both can't be right at the same time. How do we deal with that? Well, we're going to have to now stop and say, this clash, this conflictual disagreement, is it excusable views or inexcusable views? If it's excusable views, full stop again, and we say, am I a layperson, someone who's not trained in the Islamic sciences, or a Mayan, which deadhead an independent researcher, someone who's actually able to exert an effort which day Jihad right to arrive at my own conclusions? If I'm a layperson, the scholars all agree, I don't have the right to have an opinion. Because I don't have evidence. My evidence is basically the scholar that I happen to have access to

at the moment, because I can't wait forever for an answer. And so I take their answer, because they're more likely correct than me, because I need an answer to practice it, not allowed to promote it, definitely not allowed to defend it. That's it. If I'm an independent researcher, that has the tools to be able to compare and contrast the arguments being made by all sides of the disagreement, then in that case, I have the right to promote a view. But I still don't have the right to impose the view. I am acting upon what Allah who observes my heart knows, I believe, is more convincingly made of an argument. That's it, I am no way able to know for certain, which is the right view, I'm

obligated to follow my conclusion and what I believe to be the more right view, more likely to be correct view. Nothing I say can conclude this debate. Nothing I say, will be in the form of denouncing others or making an accusation against their religious commitment, or so on and so forth. So for its variety, you leave it all alone. If it's excusable disagreements, the layman does not have the right to promote any view, because he doesn't have evidence. His evidence is the scholar that he was able to exert his effort to reach. That's it for his own personal practice. The independent researcher has the right rather the obligation to follow his conclusion. And the

scholars also agree that he does not have the right to impose his view on others or denounce other excusable views positions on the subject. So let's be consistent here. Let's make sure we're following that protocol. And in the next episode, we will mind our head about the other two categories the inexcusable disagreements and the matters of collaboration unification. Yes, sir knows. And Allah azza wa jal knows best