Yasir Qadhi – Reestablishing The Caliphate
AI: Summary ©
The speakers emphasize the importance of universal leadership, loyalty, and political cooperation in achieving Islam's ultimate end goal. They stress the need for a flexible understanding of the act of supporting Islam, a strong legal framework, and the importance of learning about the past to compare their own experiences. They also address the "monster tussle wolf trend" and emphasize the importance of updating the system and addressing issues like thecentering of different Islamist movements and the "monster tussle wolf trend." They stress the need for a realistic and grounded understanding of what is possible to achieve the love and adoration of Islam, and mention a future conversation with the audience.AI: Transcript ©
Brothers and sisters we're very very fortunate and
blessed to have, with us our esteemed speaker
and our Shaykh and our mentor and on
a personal note inshallah
friend of mine. I hope inshallah's feeling is
mutual, Sheikha. Our dear, Sheikh, doctor Hatem Al
Hajj. And of course, doctor Hatem does not
need an introduction, but still, Yani, it is
our father and our duty, Iqram and Allahu.
Just a brief summary that, our sheikh Hatim
is one of the very few people who
was combined between,
an MD, a professional,
doctorate,
being a full doctor. And then, of course,
a PhD in Islamic studies as well. The
real doctor. I always joke that my mother
introduces me and when somebody says doctor she
goes this is not the real doctor, Asli
doctor. No, not an Asli one. So the
doctor Hattim is Asli doctor. Right? And he
is also PhD in fiqh al muqaran in
comparative,
fiqh. So welcome Shaykh Al Kareem to our
extensive podcast today.
For the invitation. Alhamdulillah. And of course, Sheikh
Hatim is, of course very involved in the
American Muslim Jewish Association, AMJA. And, well known
his classes, his duroos, his publications, his fiqh.
Now I want to explain why we are
doing this, podcast which is of course, something
relatively new and it is our first inshallah
and perhaps in a longer series.
And that is that
especially during the last few years post Arab
Spring, there were a lot of,
debates going on online with regards to,
Islam, Islamic politics, the role of their ulama.
And these were very contested issues, and emotions
were high,
and,
sentiments were were given in a very, very
blunt manner.
And I began to read,
of course, I had my views in a
print, and that back then I was active
on social
media. So I began to read, Sheikh Khatim's,
posts, and they really resonated with me because
these are things that I had been saying
as well in my own way. But, of
course, Sheikh Khatim is, of course, far senior
to us in every single aspect. And so
he was,
saying, in a far more
academic and with the quotations that are necessary.
And I began to have a conversation, with
him. And I said, Sheikh Hannah, we need
to have a very frank,
dialogue.
And even if we disagree, we show what
are the parameters of disagreement
and explain, because these are very sensitive issues.
And so
because of those posts,
and this is like, we're talking about, you
know, 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 2
years ago, this is finally the result of
that after a number of back and forth.
Finally, hamdulillah, he's here in Dallas with us.
And so we're gonna be spending a few
hours inshallahu ta'ala, as long as we're able
to, to do to discuss a series of
sensitive topics with regards to Islam and politics,
with regards to Khalifa,
with regards to methodology of Khalifa, with regards
to the importance of Khalifa. And a very
important note, this,
in interview or this back and forth because
we're both gonna be participating. It just so
happened coincidentally, I gave a talk last month
before Ramadan,
that is separate to what we're talking about
with Sheikh Khatim. Even though, of course, because
I gave it, I'm gonna bring up certain
aspects of that. But the reason why we're
having this, podcast has nothing to do with,
my talk last last month because I have
been speaking with him for many many, months,
in fact more than a year to get
this podcast done. Insha'Allah.
So with that, Sheikh Al Kareem, let us
begin with, I would say, the crux of
the matter. And then from that, we're gonna
we're
gonna keep on going our way organically.
And, again, for the record, our brothers and
sisters, this is not scripted. You know, I
have some questions and some talking points that
I have in my mind but we haven't,
you know, scripted this. We're gonna be inshallah
raw and and and organic and I will
be
pushing back and forth insha'Allah as is our
want. So the first question, shaykhanaul kareem,
is what is your personal view based on
your understanding of the Quran, the Sunnah, the
Sira of the,
obligation of establishing the khilafa?
Is it something that is farut?
And if so,
the level of farut
and where do we get this farut from?
Is it something that is aqadi? It is
it is something from the Sharia?
Is it something Akali?
So what what is the role of the
Khalifa,
in our,
discourse as Muslims? So, Bismillah.
To proceed.
Well, once again,
for the invitation, and
it's it's a it's a very appropriate question
to start this discussion with.
But before I, you know, address that particular
question, I just want to say
that I wish,
that the viewers,
would examine the arguments,
based on their own merits
and do not waste too much time
trying to find, like, a small box for
the speakers,
or trying to categorize the speakers,
because personally speaking,
I it would be hard for them to
find a small box for me.
That does not mean that I don't have
any rails. I I do have my own
religious theological orientations and and so on, and
I do have my own boundaries,
but I I it would be a
waste of time for the viewers
to try to find a small box to
put,
the speaker or that speaker
in,
and,
basically,
not examine the arguments
on their own,
merits.
Having said that, I must say that growing
up, I had many ideas that
I don't consider to be founded anymore
or realistic anymore.
And I don't say this to basically
undermine those ideas
or to belittle those ideas
because it is very possible
that I was right then and wrong now.
Very possible.
I I hope it is, is not the
case, but it is very possible. I just
want to say this,
to,
get across to the viewers that
I do not hate any genuine, sincere Muslim
for having
unrealistic or unfounded ideas.
I have grown as I aged less respectful
of identitarian religiosity
and
sort of fake religiosity,
but any genuine sincere Muslim, I don't really
dislike them
just because they have unfounded or unrealistic ideas.
Mhmm. Because I believe that I, myself,
growing up, had some unfounded and unrealistic
ideas.
And I believe I was sincere.
So you know that's where I'm coming from.
You know, I know that sincere people can
have
bad ideas.
So I don't hate any Exhibit A Sheikh.
I have a bunch of phases myself. So,
yes, we know. Yes. So the so that
that's that's important to to start with.
Having said that, I think that,
we should delineate what is exactly what it
is exactly that we're talking about. We're not,
people
who
people who have ideological fixations and things of
that nature. So we're not talking about loyalty
to Muslims.
Where
we're not talking about the concept of the
broader concept of unity.
We're not talking about the broader concept of
this Umma being 1 Umma, the the like,
the collective singular,
faith or religious community. We are a collective
singular religious community.
We are 1 Ummah,
in the broader sense.
We have loyalty and allegiance to the believers
of there is no question about this.
We're not talking about order versus anarchy. We're
not talking about the concept of imam
as in having
order versus anarchy.
We're not talking about the Sharia
and the implementation of the Sharia. We're talking
about a particular,
point, which is
the obligation of having
a singular
global
political
leadership
for the entire Muslim community
or a centralized
government for the entire Muslim community
as
some
people imagine
that we can have a central government
in Baghdad
that would rule over
all Muslim nations
or Muslim communities
from Casablanca to Jakarta.
That concept
is what we want to discuss. We want
to discuss,
you know, whether it is founded, whether it
is desirable, whether it is feasible.
But the other concepts,
loyalty to the believers,
the unity of this Ummah,
the obligation of cooperation,
coordination, integration,
in in in various,
aspects,
the the importance of order versus anarchy, the
importance of the Sharia as the backbone,
the
central peer pillar around which we organize
as,
Muslims.
All of these concepts are not
basically up for debate. There there there is
no controversy there, and it's inconceivable that there
would be any controversy there. Now the Khalifa,
someone may say,
is the political expression of that unity,
or the Khalifa is the actualization
of that unity in the political sphere.
Someone may say this
and they would be justified to this to
say this
and it would be justified to say that
that it would be desirable.
Like,
if it if it if it is feasible,
then it would be desirable
to have a
singular,
global leadership
for Muslims,
because it would be basically the actualization
of that unity that we talk about, that
one Ummah that we talk about
in the political,
sphere.
So
I I think that,
you know,
this may be an end goal or or,
of course, our our ultimate end goal is
the pleasure of Allah
that for every Muslim. And
we should not lose sight of this. This
is the ultimate end goal
for Muslims, the pleasure of
Allah.
As sheikh Abul Hasan Nadwi Rahimahullah
in his
amazing and and and genius,
writings,
particularly his book tafsir I siyasi that islam
or the political interpretation of islam
pointed out
would be a fruit a result
of
our of
our,
basically
commitment, our religious commitment, our commitment to the
deen of
Allah our devotion to Allah it will bring
about righteous governance and it will bring about
unity and it will bring about
that political manifestation or actualization,
lake rain brings about vegetations.
So it is a result.
It's not the ultimate end goal
and it is not the effective cause.
It is not a necessary or sufficient cause
for renaissance
for Islamic life. It's neither a necessary nor
sufficient
cause to have an Islamic life,
but it is a product,
a result
of having an Islamic life.
Jayed, so Sheikh, in this case, the technical
term would be it is
Fard or Mustahab
for you?
Fard or Mustahab?
I'm asking. Okay.
It it it would be
what is it exactly that is far? Establishing
an imam in different
areas,
is of course, a far. The prophet sallallahu
alaihi wa sallam said,
Whoever dies without having pledged an allegiance to
an imam, he will die in a state
of jahiliyah,
which means that
you should not basically be
promoting anarchy
or rebelling against the legitimate authority
or,
Muslims should not ignore the importance of,
order,
you know, and and hierarchy, political hierarchy.
Now
is it a
must to have
a singular global
leadership
for Muslims?
I think that
it is a fard
to work towards unity
and to actualize of that unity,
whatever it is that can be actualized
given the sociopolitical
realities
of the different times.
I let me let me be clear with
you here. I would not have any faith
crisis
if we never had a falafel
until the day of judgment.
It would not cause me any faith crisis.
It would not cause me any discomfort
about my faith.
There is a particular hadith that people quote
often.
I grew up quoting this hadith. I grew
up believing in this wholeheartedly.
The known hadith is reported by Ahmed from
an Omani Brebasheer in which Haifa
conveyed from the prophet
that he said
So the prophet said that that you will
have the prophet with among you for as
long as Allah wills and Allah
will then raise it or remove it when
he wills. And then there will be a
khilafa,
on the prophetic method,
for as long as Allah wills, and then
Allah will raise it when he wills. And
then there will
be a kingship, a reign of oppressive kingship.
Mhmm.
For as long as Allah wills and and
Allah will raise and then there will be
a reign of compulsive kingship. Mhmm. And
then in Mulkul Jabri. Mhmm. And then there
will be khilafa alamin Hajjal Abuwah.
Then there will be
on the prophetic message.
We were
certain and that is basically the problem of
the problem of lack of knowledge.
We were certain that this meant that we
are waiting for
a,
on the prophetic method. Growing up, I was,
like,
when I was 17, I I had given
my first jummah when I was 17 and
it was about the Hakimiyya.
That was your first jummah. That was
like overconfidence
that I
have regretted afterwards.
But anyway,
so so I was certain that this is
this would be this is we were expecting
this.
Mhmm. And it would have caused me faith
crisis then,
to have been told that,
no this may never
materialize.
You know a singular global leadership, political leadership
for all Muslims
may never materialize
because
this hadith meant to me and and other
and end times hadith or traditions
meant to me that this is what we're
waiting for
and and we were also certain that Mahdi
would not be the first Khalifa. Sometimes we
thought that it may be. Sometimes we thought,
the the then we came to learn that
no. It's likely not going he's not going
to be the first Khalifa.
And,
our understanding of the end of times,
traditions also was was pretty
strict
and, to a great deal, literalist.
And I am a scripturalist.
You know? So some people that would be
unkind to me would say literalist, but I
believe I'm a scripturalist.
So I don't, be that the importance of
of, the those reports, but I have,
like, a a little bit more flexible understanding
of them. That is not, say, in metaphorical,
but, I am someone who subscribes to contextual
language theory,
and I have a little bit more flexible
understanding of those reports. Now this particular hadith
this particular hadith
this is how I would look at this
particular hadith that that would be basically,
presented to Muslim youth to tell them
that you must believe
in this,
as you believe in,
you know,
Allah being,
for instance,
above his throne or you must believe in
this as you believe
in the day of judgment
being true,
you know, and,
and the angels and and and all of
that stuff. I don't believe so anymore
for several reasons. One of them
to begin with
being a scripturalist,
I believe
in what Imam Shatabir Rahimahullah said
that
which means that the rank of the sunnah
is subsequent to the Quran, is not equal
to the Quran. It's subsequent to the Quran
in consideration.
The the
of Nunah.
The the is speculative,
mostly speculative,
and certainty is with the Quran, not the
the sunnah.
And this is. It's nothing. It's just not
your sha'atabi. This is the default of the
Ulsuri. But
certainty is not with the sunnah. Sha'atabi himself
says that certainty applies to the sunnah to
the collective body of the sunnah not individual
hadith.
Not individual hadith.
So you may say that you belong to
a Hanbali tradition, and I do.
That does not mean at all that we
don't have basically the concept of textual textual
critique
or the the concept of critiquing the mutton
of the Hadith
not only the Isnad. So we recognize
that the, you know, Isnad needs to be
critiqued but the mutton also needs to be
critiqued.
There is there is a particular book by
imamal alkayim
called the manar al munif
which would translate to
the lofty
lighthouse
concerning
the authentic and the weak.
In in which he says
that
there is a report from the prophet sallallahu
alaihi wa sallam
you know in which the prophet sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam was reported to have said reported
to have said
So when a man sneezes while in conversation
it's a sign on his truthfulness.
So Ibrahim Alkaim
says despite the fact that
some have authenticated the chain of narration
this
the the observable
reality
contradicts the hadith. The observable reality contradicts the
hadith.
It's a very sensitive topic, Sheikh. And of
course, we this this quotation,
it causes consternation amongst many who don't even
know this is from our own usul. Many
even salafis or ahadith.
The the the notion of using aqal
and common sense
to look at an isnaad. And Ibn Al
Qayyah mentions this for multiple examples, and this
is not the only one. That when something
is observably,
patently false, right, then if you find some
solitary chain that it it even if some
people might think that the chain is authentic,
observed reality is going to be more important
than a Vanni chain. Right? And this is
something that, again, I also brought up a
number of my lectures,
with regards to especially eschatology because this is
another issue I wanted to mention. And that
is
it's understandable
that especially at a young age, we all
went through that. Eschatology
and and and,
signs that the day of judgment, they they
they occupy or preoccupy
a type of obsession
that actually perhaps even is not as useful
as other sciences and disciplines. And we've been
all been through that phase here. So this
hadith you mentioned then Sheikh,
are you saying that it is
a, not authentic
or b, misunderstood
or c, both?
No. I am saying that it if even
if it if it were if it, if
it is authentic and it you know, many
scholars authenticated it, and I that's fine. It
could be authentic, but it's still a singular
report
A hadith. Which is that it does not
confer certainty.
Mhmm. If it is authentic,
and I am someone who says that, you
know, you should not be going around critiquing
the matna of the Hadith if you're not
qualified.
Of course, this would be chaos.
And in the you know,
individual Muslims should not be going around critiquing
this hadith, critiquing that hadith because
they're unable to comprehend it.
Because now you will make your haqqli, your
hawwa, your your passions, your desires, your biases,
the ultimate judge and that is not what
Islam is about
but qualified scholars
have critiqued to the matin as they critique
to
the isnaad or the chain of narration of
the hadith
and singular reports do not confer
certainty so
it would not cause me a faith crisis
if it did not materialize
but once again I would go back and
say
what what is the meaning of this hadith?
The idea
of eschatology end times hadith you have to
have a flexible understanding
You're basically you should get the moral lesson
from the hadith
but how they materialize
unfold in the future
you should not have a rigid understanding of
this we paid a very hefty price during
the like Mongol conquest for instance people thought
that these are Yajud and Majud
and people were defeated before they even,
like,
confronted them. Yeah.
Yeah.
So
so this hadith, Habib for
Habib one of the narrators and the person
who narrated from Anomina ibn Abashir,
said
that,
Habib bin Islam, he's a narrator. And you
you know that we privilege the understanding of
narrators.
Okay.
Habib
thought that this khilafalim in Hajjuna Buhwa happened
already during the time of Umar ibn Abdul
Aziz. Yeah.
And he he actually communicated
this,
to, through Yazid ibn Oman to Umar ibn
Abdul Aziz, and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz
sort
of were happy to hear it. Yeah.
Like the dot contested this interpretation. We're happy
to hear it. It gave him
bushra to hear the the the this. So
Arun al Razi has also agreed with this
understanding
of Habib
that it actually did materialize, already happened.
So now you're waiting for it, and the
narrator of the hadith thinks that it already
happened. Exactly.
So that
once again, that basically
underscores the importance
of,
like, a a flexible understanding
of these,
traditions.
And by the way, this is a as
you know, Shail, this is a common theme
in eschatological
reports that every generation
pretty much thinks that what is happening in
their time is exactly what is predicted in
the traditions. This is a routine cycle every
single time we see it. And the same
thing is happening now as well where our,
you know, Shabab, they read these a hadith.
And once again, they're like, okay. Well, it's
as if they're trying to write the script
or trying to understand it directly in our
times. And this is something that our ulama
have warned against. Don't write scripts or imagine
those traditions to be applying to your time
until there is certainty in this regard. But
Sheikhana pushing back a little bit. And again,
this for the viewers because obviously at many
levels I'm sympathetic.
But, I wanted to quote you,
quotations that are well known in our tradition.
And I will quote very quickly, but it
needs to be quoted because these are quotations
always found,
in these discourses online.
So for example, then Nawawi says,
That there's ajma
that the Muslims have to elect, or,
put up a leader. And of course, says
in his
that there is no difference of opinion given
in the entire Ummah except for the markazidi
alassam. And then he made a pun because
alassam means the one that is, deaf. And
so he said he was deaf or mute
from the,
Sharia.
So there is no Khalaf,
that,
there must be an imam and a Khalafah
that is, established.
And Ibn Taymiyyah says in the Siya Shasharaiyah,
his famous book that
and then he goes on and on this
translates as, it must be known that the
wilya, that the leadership for the, affairs of
the Muslims is of the greatest
of wajibat of this religion.
Rather, the religion cannot be established except through
it. And that is because the masala or
the necessary requirements of good of the children
of Adam will never take place unless they
come together, and help one another. And when
they do so, there must be a leader,
amongst them like the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam
said. If 3 people go on, traveling, then
one of them should be in charge. And
let me quote 1 or 2 more because
again, these are the quotations that are given.
And the and the and the and the
and the shia, all of them have agreed
that it is to have an imam and
that,
it is obligatory upon the ummah to then
submit to a just imam. And then of
course you have al Ma'awardi and I'll finish
here and I have other quotes as I
have a whole bunch of quotations.
Because again, this is the whole point. Anytime
you start about this, you're immediately bombarded with
these quotations. So let us discuss them. Al
Mawardi of course is one of the few
people who has written treaties on Islamic political
science. We wish more had been written but
as you're aware, this is a topic that
is, not elaborated on it. We can maybe
discuss this later on in this in this
podcast.
Al Maward says in
that, the Imama
is,
a basic continuation. I'm translating by, by meaning
of the,
khilafa that the prophet salallahu alaihi wasalam established
and it is a protection of the deen
and it is, the politics of this world.
It is how, we run this world
and to establish
it,
for those who are gonna be sufficient for
it, it is wajib
for this ummah by ijma' of the scholars.
Now I can go on and on as
you're aware there's so many quotations. So
one could say
your sentiment at the beginning 5 minutes ago
seems to clash with all of these quotations.
What would you respond to this?
It doesn't. It may appear so, but it
does not.
I,
said in the beginning that we have to
separate between,
or
as in order versus anarchy,
versus having one imam for the entire.
These are 2 different discussions.
So Al Imam al Joanna
in his book at Arshad
points out that difference,
that one is for and one is not.
One is a certainty, which is the importance
of install installing an imam
or appointing an imam
basically to defend the weak, to protect
the borders, to establish,
law and order.
There is
no question about this
whatsoever.
This is min al qawata.
Now plurality of imams,
multiplicity of imams versus singularity
that is a different discussion
realistically
speaking
we
have one imam for a very short period
of time
and thereafter we have not been
all under 1 imam
for the vast majority of our history.
But theologically
speaking,
you know, speaking from the the Fiqh
viewpoint,
the first one is a matter of consensus.
The second one, you know, can we, have
several imams,
several khalifas
if you use
the word khalifa in its linguistic sense which
appears to be how the sahaba viewed it
Omar Ibn Khattab himself
said, if you say Khalifa Khalifa At Rasool
Allah, you atul.
And then in Mughira said to him,
he
said okay that works. So Omar Khattab said
if you if you say the successor of
the successor of the Messenger of Allah Abu
Bakr was the successor of the Messenger if
you say the successor of the successor
of the Messenger of Allah this would be
long
then Muhirullah
said to him and other reports to others
that we are the believers you are our
leader
or prince amir
So you are the leader of the believers.
You are Amir al Mumani. Omar said that
works.
Okay. So they understood the word of Khalifa,
and Khalifa did actually appear in in different
traditions,
prophetic
traditions that we can talk about,
later.
But
but they they they seem to have had,
like, a more flexible
understanding of the word, the Khalifa, someone who
succeeds another.
You know, replace me. Be and take my
place among my people.
You know,
So take my place in my people. Someone
who is left behind
to take care of
someone's
affairs,
someone who succeeds another to take care of
the affairs of that person or their their
family or their
etcetera.
So plurality of imams
is is is a little bit controversial.
And as I said, Imam Al Jawayni said
it's not.
You know,
imam
Abu al Abbas critiqued,
the the that Al Imam Hazmer reported
about the,
you know,
the
the singularity of, or the the the the
of having a singular,
or the obligation of having 1 imam for
the entire,
Umma. And Imam and Taymiyyah did not contest
to that it is Wajid
because he himself
recognizing
that sometimes it is unfeasible,
but he he says
that,
the sunnah,
he says the sunnah
is to have a single imam
but if it happens
that because of Masaya or a sin from
part of the Ummah an incapacity
of the other part that we have more
than 1 imam and this already happened from
the time of Abdul Rahman at Dakhil,
you know, when he basically,
broke off with, Andalusia.
We have not been under a a single
imam,
from that time. So it it already happened.
It's not like we are the ones who
are making this Masayyah. It had already happened.
There were, like,
more than
before this,
during the time
of
Aliyah said they were both imams at the
same time.
Abdullah ibn Zubair, you know, he had his
he had Abdul Leibniz of Bayr
had the majority of the Muslim lands under
him during the Umayyad dynasty.
He had Al Iraq. He had Al Hajaz
Yeah. Al Haramain.
He had Egypt also for some time.
And so so the Umayyads had, you know
the greater Syria or Sam or the Levant
and then the parts north the to the
north of this but they have very little
compared to Abdullah ibn Zubair.
So it's not like a new thing. This
Masaiyah,
if you if as as imam Matejmiyyah says
it's a masaya,
had already happened.
He then says he then says if that
is the case
then each one of those imams
recognizing the legitimacy of this arrangement
each one of those imams
should fulfill the rights of people, establish
the Hudud,
establish the law,
and fulfill people's rights and protect people and
so on and so forth.
So he's basically,
this is a shift of focus,
and this is an important shift of focus
and this is the only way we can
survive.
From
the khilafa to the sharia
where the Sharia becomes the center center pillar
around which we organize
the formative thesis for Islamic life. The central
pillar around which Muslims
organize,
not the Khalifa.
The sharia is bigger than the Khalifa.
The Khalifa
is one manifestation,
of of the unity.
One goal that we must be working
for as an end goal
that will motivate,
energize,
us
that will
that will cause progress.
You see how Erdogan said, you know, we
want to join the EU. We want to
join the EU just to to bring about
progress within Turkey
towards like this idea
even though
or towards this objective
even though he may have never believed in
it. You know?
But but this is not this is not
the same thing. Not the same thing. Khalifa
is not like joining the EU. I'm not
saying this it's the same thing but you
have an end goal that will motivate and
energize people and that will bring about progress
towards unity.
It is important
economic integration
between muslims
you know
mutual sort of cooperation
on on various
issues
and, you know, the defense also, defense treaties,
mutual defense, all of that.
The Khalifa will will basically be the catalyst
of all of those manifestations
of unity,
cooperation,
and coordination
between Muslims.
Now
having,
having more than one imam
has been the position
of some scholars.
You know?
We have 3 different positions here. We have
those scholars who said, without any reason, you
can have more than 1 imam.
Al Karameya said this.
And and, certainly, you may blame me, but
these are still Muslim. I Of course they
are. I I yeah. So we are Sunnis.
They're not just Muslims. They're with a So
Otherwise, they're within Sunnis and by and large.
Yeah. Generic Sunnis. Yes. So Al Karameya said
this. They have their their own excesses and,
but, yes, they are within the Sunni,
fold, but, they had their their own excesses.
So Zaidi has said this. So some of
the Zaidi has said this. Some of the
said this
without any reason. You can have more than
one imam.
Some people said
that
you can have more than 1 imam if
it is logistically difficult to have 1.
Those are the people who said that you
can have more than 1 imam means
the lands of Islam became
too vast for 1 imam to control,
Too far away from each other, too vast
for 1 imam to control. If the tasaaatulhutah
you can have more than 1 imam and
those are not a few people or
basically negligible.
The
the
Imam Al Jawani reports this from
and the.
This was also the position of Al Qutobi
in.
This was also the position of many of
the Mu'tazila.
This was also the position of
I would argue that
this is what,
is indicating
when he he says that if at some
point
for a
or a sin committed by people, we,
split up or,
you know, or we became divided,
and because of the incapacity of others, then
having more than one imam is a legitimate
arrangement of the judgment alternative.
So you have those 3 different positions. Now
am I denying
that the vast majority
of Muslim scholars
said
that
having more than 1 imam is not acceptable.
That the obligation is to have a singular
political
entity
for all Muslims. I am not denying this.
This this
this is the majority.
This is the decisive majority.
Decisive majority
of our muslim scholars
said
regardless
of the vastness of the muslim lands
regardless
of logistical
difficulties,
it is
obligatory
to install
1 imam for all Muslims.
Now is this a matter of certainty? No.
It's not a matter of certainty.
That is what I want to go back
to.
This is the the the majority position.
But
more and more people starting to become more
sort of accepting of the reality of,
the the Diversity of Diversity
of communities
and the the the difficulty
of installing 1 imam that would rule over
all Muslims
throughout the Let let me just push back
a little bit here.
How do I say this gently so that
The
the
the the the people who argue about this,
the multiplicity of Imams, the legitimacy
of this alternative,
of multiple imams
should not be
argued with or should not be presented with
evidence because they don't comprehend it. Yeah. Imam
Shukan in Salazar has a very pragmatic and
and actually very open
minded reality that this is you the you
know, you're gonna have different imams in different
places, and everybody should be following the imam
of their place here. Moshiya, my point here
and I'm trying to be gentle because I
have to be conscious of how words are
easily misconstrued online.
Don't you find that this discussion
of the quantity of Imams and how they
should be seems to be disconnected
from the historical reality of the Ummah?
Meaning that all of this discussion is happening
almost
almost
as if it is happening in a vacuum
with regards to even in the same time
frame as those authors are writing.
Because
even
the Abbasid and the Uthmani and whatnot Khilafas,
the majority of their own domains
were just by name even.
There was complete,
separate
systems of government, taxation,
sometimes even not even a nominal nod towards
the Khalifa. And you've always had many hierarchy
hierarchical,
dynasties
within all of these after the time of
the Umayyads. And then you've actually had complete
disconnect, like, between the,
Mughals and the,
the the Ottomans, for example. Right? There is
a complete
disconnect between the two of them. There's a
nod here and there, but the Mughal emperor
never submitted, Yani, to the, the Ottoman Sultan.
And so
this whole notion of how many imams should
there be and whatnot
seems to be disconnected from the wakr reality
that since the time of the 2nd century,
I a 100 something Hijra, we have always
had competing
Imams and competing dynasties and competing
provinces
that were for all practical purposes and sometimes
officially
completely disconnected from one leadership. What'd you say
to that? I agree completely wholeheartedly.
I
how could how could you contest to this?
I mean, it's it's just like you would
be lying. Like, Jayed. And, like, you
ideologues lie about the history all the time
to live,
their own fantasies. So I agree with this.
We we and and it's just, like,
indisputable reality.
And, as I said, this
it is even before this, you know, from
the
time
of,
some people consider that they were both imams
at the same time.
Abdullah ibn Zubair was an imam at the
same time
as, you know,
Yazid al Muhaawiya,
his son, and and then Marwan and and
then, Abdul Malik and and so on.
And he was he was the better imam,
you know, in all honesty. I mean, he
was Abdullah ibn Zubayr. How could you compare
Abdullah ibn Zubayr? Without a doubt. Without a
doubt, he was the the better of the
2 at the time. Yeah. Yeah. So
so the idea that yes.
This is this is a, a reality that
has always existed.
Now
this did not
change their their
Theory.
Theory Yeah. About the the singularity.
But where does the theory come from? Here
is the the important part here is the
theological foundation
of this theory. The theologic theological foundation,
or the legal justification
of this, theory.
So the reports of the Quran, this is
not a
single
explicit
higher in the Quran
or close to explicit
or even apparent.
A verse in the Quran
that
demands a singular
political
entity
for all Muslims.
You know, so what is it that you
can come up
with?
This nation of yours is Well, they say
they say
they bring their evidence.
So this nation of yours is 1 nation
and I'm your Lord, so worship me alone.
This was basically addressing the
line of prophets. Yes. All civilizations,
yeah.
And then
even if you say it applies to Muslims,
it applies to our
collective
singular
faith community.
Yes. It's not a political
In the religious sense, not in the political
sense. Okay. And and then
There's no evidence. Yeah.
Obey Allah and his messenger and those in
authority among you. It was actually in plural
form. Exactly. Exactly. Use it against it. Yeah.
But Sheikh, okay. Let me take So now
you take the sunnah.
Mhmm. Now you take the sunnah.
Yeah.
So if if the is given to 2
Khalifas, kill the latter.
Whoever gives the of allegiance to an imam,
then he should obey him as much as
he can. And if if another one comes
to dispute him or to overthrow
overthrow him, then kill the
Kill the other. Kill the other. Okay.
Now
here is the issue.
Is the prophet, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam,
talking to,
Muslims?
You know, this is just like the global
moon sighting and the local moon sighting.
Is he talking to Muslims in different localities
that you should not have more than 1
imam
within the same dominion or the same territory?
That's a possible interpretation.
That is a accepted authenticity of those reports
and we accept them.
Isn't it a possible interpretation
that the prophet
was talking to different Muslim communities in different
places
saying that you must not have
2,
imams at the same time,
within the same dominion, within the same territory.
It's a possible interpretation. It is. So there
is no certainty here that the prophet
is saying
and then the the then the then the
then the is reported.
The is
reported.
But didn't the Ansar say
Amir? You know, the when the Ansar convened
at
or the shadow of Bani Sa'id
or the portico of Bani Sa'id, whatever you
call it,
did did they not say, you know, there
will appoint an emir from our side? They
said
to the Muhajarin.
If this matter
is of such importance,
you know
I just want people to reflect on this.
By the way the arguments that Ubak
gave back were Akli and Montaqi and not
Sharai. He didn't quote a hadith. Yeah. Yeah.
He used an Akli argument to say that
you can't have 2 amirs. It's not gonna
yeah. And this is an important point as
well. But anyway, yeah. The the whole discussion
in in Saqifat Bani saying that people need
to just reflect on it. It's very deep.
I don't wanna go there, but it's a
very deep even theological issues. No. That's not
for today's contest. So so if the
if this matter
if the governance of
God is the crux of
our is
the basically the most important
manifestation
the the ultimate goal of our which is
what
Sheikh Abu Hassan Nadawi critiques and has tafsirasiyasi
Islam the political
interpretation of Islam.
Would the Sahaba be so
like
unaware
of this matter
and the the details
the the the finest details of this matter?
Would
would them, Ansar,
be unaware,
you know, to this extent?
Would they have this much disagreement among themselves?
The pushback, Sheikh, from their side and again,
this is a discussion. Obviously, I'm sympathetic to
your your stance here. The pushback from their
side is
that you are neglecting
the fact
that the sahaba understood
that this was so important
that they delayed the burial of the prophet
or even if you don't say delay it
they didn't even
wait for his burial
until they had elected Amir. So for them,
having an Khalifa and having a Islamic political
entity
was so important
that even the burial of the prophet, sasam,
did not take precedence over that. So they
argue to us, this is ijma'a of the
sahaba
that you must actively
work towards establishing
an Islamic
polity. I completely concur.
That's order versus anarchy. That is not singular
political entity. So then this leads us to
the the the the other point, which is
a very difficult one.
And
just keep in mind that there are many
Ijma'as that have been reported on many issues.
Like, look at the Ijma'a for instance that
the Khalifa has to be a Qurashi. Isn't
that an Ijma'a? Well, no. Because of Hadif
and others in part, but yeah. Some have
said there's Ijma'a. Yes. Many many many have
said there's Ijma'a. Many reported the jama'at. Even
though as usual there's no jama'at but ked.
Yes. It's reported. But can can can you
neglect an Ansar who who said that Did
she even know it was there? Exactly my
point is this incident has a lot
of deep Can can you also neglect to
Omar radiAllahu anhu who said if Abu Ubaidah
were alive, I would have not Mhmm. Thought
about anyone else. And if he were not
and if he was not, then I would
have chosen and and some other hadith, he
said
both Mu'adh and Salim Mohd Abi Haifa are
not from Quraysh. They're not even So even
says that people who are reported as mad,
they need to figure out how to reinterpret
this statement. They they can either say it's,
you
know, to say
that Umar,
changed his mind later
or that the idma happened after Umar. And
anyone who knows about this knows that the
difficulty of having an ijma after omer. Yes.
You know the difficulty of establishing an ijma
after omer.
So so you have Ansar, you know, unaware
of the of of this sort of indubitable
fact of the Hakidah,
the Muslimen. Clearly developed after what was said.
Okay. And then Omar,
also unaware that that is just it's this
is not
This is just not logical. Jayed. So then,
Sheikh, let me then let me then be
very explicit because you're in my humble opinion,
you seem to be squirting around a very
awkward reality. And I wanna verbalize it. And
so let's deconstruct this reality.
You seem to be
very clearly
insinuating
that these
hadith or let me just say the concept
of
Imara and Khalifa and leadership and whatnot
that as long as there is civil order
and as long as anarchy is eliminated
that
to a great extent
the spirit of what the Sharia wants us
to do has been accomplished.
And therefore, it seems to me
that since
we are
living in lands where at least many lands,
not all of them, many lands where anarchy
has is does not exist, there's not complete
lawlessness and chaos.
There there is civil order. There is, a
means of people cooperating together for the greater
good. It seems that the existence
of these systems
mitigates
in your eyes,
this notion that other
Islamist movements have of working towards what they
call the Khalifa. Am I correct in this
verbalization?
So so as I said, I believe that
it's an obligation on us to work towards
the Khalifa as an end goal. Basically towards
work towards
Muslim unity
or the political expression of that Muslim unity
or actualization of that Muslim unity.
But there are many other priorities
and it it depends on what we mean
by the Khalifa
and,
which strategies
we we will adopt to achieve that political
unity.
And I don't believe
that
we can just have the Khalifa
drop down from the heavens on us like
you know we we just can't have we
can't start by the Khilafa
this notion that we will overthrow the government
in in Morocco, for instance, and march the
troops
from Morocco to Jakarta
and and use, you know, some uprisings here
and there to enable us By the way,
Morocco is just an example. It's just not
we're not intending any coolness for the record
here. It's just, like, it's just an example,
guys. But but but but but this thought
Yes. That you overthrow the government in one
place, you take over the that one country,
and then you marshate the your troops
and,
bring everybody under that that that,
central,
rule or government
is is not realistic.
It is not realistic.
It does not sound feasible.
Now
then
we have to figure out, yes,
working towards Muslim unity is an obligation.
Working towards Muslim,
coordination,
cooperation,
integration
is an obligation.
But what do we mean by this, and
how do we go about it is the
question.
And when you bring, you know, what
what I was
trying to say
is that
certainty belongs to
the Islamic
values and ideas, not a specific
detailed
system of governance.
But Islam brought about certain values that are
extremely important for righteous governance
that we should not neglect.
I have always said this to myself
about what we have done to Islam,
what we have done to the Quran.
You know,
I I have
I've been saying to myself
in a second.
We we basically ignore that silence
silence that when it spoke,
and we,
made it to speak
when it stayed silent.
Which which means what?
There are certain concepts that are very important,
Islamically
for righteous governance.
Shura is one of them.
And this is not because of liberalism, and
this is not because of modernity. This is
an this is
a surah in the Quran that was named
after Shura. Two verses that spoke explicitly
of Shura.
You know, their their affairs are conducted on
the basis of mutual consultation and consult them
and a surah that was named after surah.
Justice
is an extremely Islamic value.
Equality
bet between equals is an is an important
Islamic value.
Separation of powers. You know, the and
the the the story of the shield that
dis disputed over the the Jewish man and
went to the judge. Separation of,
powers within, you know, the
independence of the judiciary
or the judicial branch
is is an important and
so there are important some Islamic concepts. Some
people argue
that Islam provide a system of governance. I
I don't get entangled in terminology.
So if you think that Islam provided a
system of governance,
system the so I'm not gonna argue with
you over the word system.
I don't believe that Islam provided
details
with regard to governance. Islam provided principles and
that is the beauty and the genius of
Islam.
Mhmm. Because certain things need to be delineated
in great detail such as because they never
change. And other things related. Other change have
to be adjusted to adapt it to circumstantial
realities that are variable, that are changing all
the time.
So so think about the Sharia as having
constant objectives and overarching
maxims and then flexible legal framework.
Allah's address to us is not moving.
It is the reality that is moving.
So
different,
basically,
circumstances will bring about different
rulings
not because the Sharia is moving,
it is because the reality is moving. The
Sharia is fixed, but the Sharia is based
on principles and manata,
effective causes,
you know, the legal justifications
or effective causes,
whatever
ratio leads us, whatever you called it. So
those are
fixed,
those maxims are fixed, the reality is moving.
So when the reality changes this particular custom
or this particular
matter
would
fit under a different principle of Sharia. The
principles are fixed. Mhmm. So the reality itself
is moving like this under the fixed principles
of the Sharia. So the flexible legal framework
or the Sharia will accommodate the differences
in,
in the different times and and different places
as, you know, the verifying Erudite scholars have,
you know, over and overstated
and emphasized
and reiterated.
So
in this particular area,
you know the area of politics, the sphere
of politics.
Things change all the time.
You know the geopolitical
realities, the sociopolitical
realities,
change all the time. Therefore,
having
a fixed detailed
system
would not be
appropriate. Yeah. Would not That's why yes. And
and even historically, we have seen different iterations
of systems. Of course. Like, whoever said that
Al Ahad,
is part of is is recommended by Allah
Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala. Al Ahad which is basically
passing the covenant on.
So
you you spoke about Adi Muhammadu Mahdi and
having a book on Siyas al Saraiyah called
the Hakam sultanay it's a it's a great
book
but
how much of it is a is direct
revelation from God, and how much of it
is the Oh. Illusions that he had reached
and Yeah. Based on,
his his interpretive effort and the realities that
he was surrounded by. At the same time,
our Hambari imam,
had written a book called the also
Which has a lot of overlap because over
there today. Lot of similarities
who who A bit too many, but But
but that's fine.
But but at any rate,
is it a product? Is it basically the
explicit
revelation? No. Absolutely not. Like,
read it read it impartially,
see how many
hadith,
are are being quoted there.
See see how explicit the implication of the
hadith that are being quoted there. So when
imam
says that there are 3 different ways
of,
having legitimate
leadership,
or installing an imam.
One of them is mutual consultation or the
Haqq, you know, the idea of the Haqq,
the contract. This should be the only one.
This is the only one that that is
based on Islamic values.
Al act, a contract.
We are
the we,
the people, the Muslims,
are.
We are
basically
the,
the sort sort of one party in this
act.
We may have,
like, an agent
to represent us. Those are those who bind
and unbind, but their role is. It
they they are our agent in choosing an
imam,
but we are
basically
the people entitled
to this right.
We, the Muslims,
are the people entitled to this right. And
if there are if there is a group
of people called,
they are our aqeel, our agent,
in signing this contract. Mhmm. In signing this
contract
with the imam. It's a contract.
And all the basically the conditions of contracts
would apply to it and we can basically
modify the contract. We can adjust the contract,
we can adapt the contract because Allah
or the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said that
Muslim wrote to him.
We we will get to how much we
can modify as we're going on today. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But but what I'm trying
to say is the
ulcerative
theory.
Says that it is also established through,
the covenant that is being passed
on, the covenant. What does the covenant mean?
The
the concept of Al Ahd, the crown the
crown prince
the crown
prince this concept where does it come from
Abu Bakr radiAllahu anhu
endorsed Omar
Imam Zaynayr
clearly
says that this endorsement
is not appointment by Abu Bakr. He did
not appoint Omar. He endorsed Omar. Had Omar
not been chosen by the majority of the
companions He wouldn't have. This endorsement would not
have meant anything. Yeah.
Likewise, when Umar gave the bayah to Abu
Bakr had, Abu Bakr had not been given
bayah to by the majority of the companions.
Omar Zabeah would not have meant anything,
you know, in in Saqifat Bani's side. So,
now
now this
or this
endorsement
had a different interpretation
according to later
scholars in later times.
What is it? It it became binding. Binding.
Binding. Yeah.
So it is not endorsement.
It is passing the covenant on to your
son or to your brother or to whomever.
And
we know this as well when Waawih
instituted it for his son, there was a
serious backlash amongst the senior Sahaba Of course.
And the sons of the Sahaba and Aisha,
their great brothers. Ultimately, yeah. So it's not
that simplistic in this regard. No. Absolutely not.
So Okay. So but this became
this became the norm. Mhmm. Historical norm.
Historically, this became the norm. Where is this?
And and the the
I would say I would say
that I appreciate the pragmatism of the fuqaha.
Mhmm. Because they wanted to keep peace and
order. Equal order. Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate the
pragmatism of the fuqaha.
I do not appreciate the rigidity of the
people who read those books
and consider
this to be Islam.
So the pragmatism of the fuqaha, the flexibility
of the fuqaha,
rigid people now read those books and they
consider this to be sort of this is
what Islam says.
No. This is basically the Fuqaha being flexible
For their time frame. Being pragmatic
for their their times.
And
that was the norm in in their times.
So, Sheikh, I mean, the other thing that,
again, historically,
theory is one thing. The reality is that,
there have been multiple occasions in our history
where
people have overthrown, people have taken power. I
mean, the classic example is Umayyad al Abbasid,
civil war that took place between the Muslim
Ummah and the,
Umayyads were massacred and the Abbasids came to
power. And then the same thing happened at
smaller scales within the Abbasid dynasties
multiple times. So obviously, we get to the
issue of al Mutaghalib here, and what do
you have to say about the the theory
versus the reality of this?
Well,
Ilham Abu Yala himself has said that Ilham
Ahmed indicated that Al Mutaghallib would have legitimacy.
So when he talked about 3 different ways
of installing an imam
one of them as we said was cut
the contract the act the other one is
Al A'ad passing the covenant on to the
next one
and the third is a mutagallib
and imam Abuiala said that imam Mahoda indicated
and that became basically the norm in us
in in our
tradition it's not peculiar position of Imam Mohammed
became the norm in our Fekkah tradition that
whoever
seizes power by force
will will become an imam a legitimate imam
and his bayah will be binding
and everybody has to accept it and that
became
basically the norm
for
a very big portion of our history
and that resulted in someone being a Kharijite
today and being an imam tomorrow so they
they are cursed Kharijites today
and they're imams tomorrow and the only difference
is they won
that's the only difference
had they been defeated they would have been
condemned to the strategize status for the rest
of their lives.
But
just because they won, they became
the legitimate imam that we have to pray
for and that we have to,
basically give him the the clasp of our
hands and the
fruit of our hearts.
So
this this was
the reality
and that is why and and this is
an extremely important,
you know,
point that we have to emphasize here,
because I have
been
open enough to talking to people who are
not like me,
people
that may be described as secular Muslims, for
instance.
I have been willing to talk to them,
to hear their concerns
and their trepidations
and their
reluctance about the concept of khalafa, their fear
from this concept,
They're basically paranoia
about
this concept because they have
traumatized
memories, particularly the people who were under the
Khalafah, the people who are
a little bit more on the intellectual side,
and they do read the history, and they
are a little bit more familiar.
So whatever it is we, and I have
considered myself always to be one of,
of the people who
want
for Islam to have its rightful place in
the public's
space or the public's
sphere.
Whatever we present to them it brings about
you know
like bad memories nightmares
for them
and because
many of our
were bloodthirsty
lunatics.
Many of them.
And that I I I have never shied
away from saying this, and I will never
stop that many of them with bloodthirsty lunatics.
And they used the ummah as a father
for basically their pursuit of power and their
pursuit of consolidation of power and their pursuit
of tyrannical power and their pursuit of, basically
acting as the khalifa of Allah, as basically
divine agents
on on earth or this is how they
thought of themselves. This leads us to the
very awkward reality. I've said this so many
times in my lectures that our history is
human. Our religion is divine. And one of
the biggest, in my humble opinion, impediments to
this discourse.
And again, we're having a very frank conversation.
So you said something that,
many of our Khalifa were bloodthirst lunatics.
I want to emphasize here that, unfortunately, what
we have is
almost a high school level understanding of Islamic
history amongst people that are actually not at
high school level. And they have a very
romanticized
notion of the past. And they're fed either
half myths or complete myths or complete
tropes that have no legitimacy to them. And
they perform or they form an image
of the past that is closer to a
fantasy
than it is to reality.
And there are so many examples. I mean,
I I wanna give a library chat. I
have a series called Library Chats. I wanna
give a library chat where I literally go
over the top 5 or 10 quotations from
which we form this this collective romantic memory.
The famous story of Waha Muertasimha for example.
Right? I mean, it's complete. Found 500 years
later or there's no hustle to it. I'm
not saying it never happened but for sure
we don't know what happened. It's just a
complete type of fairy tale esque type of
story or the notion that Umar ibn Abdul
Aziz,
eliminated poverty in his entire Khalafah. I mean,
how can any person actually believe that amongst
30,000,000 people there is not a single faqir?
This is a misunderstanding of a report found,
of a very specific issue. I don't wanna
go there. It's a deconstruction.
My point is that when you are fed
these simplistic tropes, right, that the Khalifa was
this grandiose
affair where a single lady who was harmed,
the Khalifa himself would rally the troops to
save her on the other side of the
of the land. That, you know, there was
not a single poor person. They were for
Quran at the time of the prophet salallahu
alayhi wasalam. You know, and you think that
Amr ibn Adri is gonna eliminate poverty. When
you have this There was Ahmed Majah at
the time of his grandfather. Of course. Exactly.
I mean, it's just I mean, to to
to then assume that there's this utopia
out there. In my humble opinion, and this
needs to be said, we've lived through the
9 11 crisis. We lived through the Kai
then ISIS crisis. Now we're living through another
mini crisis in this regard.
Why
are so many people
attracted to this
unrealistic, idealistic,
romanticized notion?
One of the main reasons is that they
have been taught a version of events that
is divorced from reality,
and they have this perception of the past
that is simply not true. And hence, when
you have
radical groups or even fundamentalist groups that are
not violent,
propagating views that are unrealistic.
Right?
So many people
jump onto this proverbial bandwagon because
they're
wanting this elusive myth of a utopia that
has never existed. And when you preach to
them this reality,
they push back because it's a fairy tale
they've been taught their whole lives. And they
you literally deprive them of something that they've
been yearning for for so long. And you
said it so bluntly,
so many of our leaders in the past
were not righteous people. Dare I say, and
this is again very harsh to say, perhaps
that is almost the default
that the people in charge were not worthy
to be in charge. And what things that
happened under them, and I said this so
many times that the reason why the khulafa
rashjudun are the atypical exception is because they
were the exception, you know, to the default
of what happened after them. So when people
understand this reality, it changes their perception
hopefully and they become a little bit more
mature.
But to get back now, so let's fast
forward now. We're talking about past and theory.
Let's get to modernity.
Let's get to our current state of affairs
where we are divided into 57
nation states where every single country in the
Muslim world,
you know, has its own
political authority
where some of them some of them are
genuinely,
in terms of civil order doing relatively well.
Even GDP wise and others amongst them are
not doing so well.
What now do we do as a Muslim
within these Muslim majority? Let's get to begin
with them. Muslim majority lands. You talked about
Muslim unity. You talked about idealizing Oh, sorry.
You
talked you talked about working towards some type
of,
type of of notion.
But then let's get back to political order.
What is the role of the Muslim in
a Muslim majority land to bring about a
political
system of laws in conformity with the Sharia?
Yeah. Well,
let let let's talk about this because this
is important, but,
when it comes to the history, as as
you said, as you indicated, that's that's a
major problem. I think that people need to
learn a little bit more about the history,
particularly
if you will
be,
if you if if you will be like
an activist or a preacher or you'll put
yourself in a place
where you actually should learn a little bit
more,
before you,
assume that position or that place.
And we do not want to basically
also shake people's confidence in their
history or in their.
We want to be we want to be
fair. We want to be just,
but we don't want to basically
sweep anything under the rug and,
pretend,
like, something that you know, or or or
present to people something that is completely unreal,
completely divorced
from reality or, completely unfactual.
So our history has
what we need to to do to say
is is multiple things when it comes to
our history and our, recollection of our history.
One thing is we should compare ourselves,
we should compare those to
their times, not to our time. Mhmm. Because
it would be unfair also that presentism,
like,
people in Europe were not having,
basically,
liberal democracies in the middle ages.
So we should compare them to their times,
and they had actually adapted to their times.
Mhmm.
They were
more about their times than they were about
the Islamic ideals.
So the Umayyads,
and and and the wickedness that was practiced
by them. Well, if you believe in the
the prophet saying, it's
it's oppressive
kingship.
The prophet
in a hadith said
This is the hadith of Safina.
In my will be only for 30 years
and thereafter
it will be kingship.
And kingship
in the in you know this has like
negative connotations negative connotations so he's saying that
it would only be 30 years and this
was clearly what it was. So the narrator
of the hadith said
The narrator himself, the Safina himself did.
So then,
some of our righteous predecessors
used to dislike calling anyone khalifa after Hasan
ibn Ali radiAllahu anhu. So their cutoff is
Al Hassan Ibn Ali radiAllahu anhu. This was
our last Khalifa. And here here we are
romanticizing
every single one of them.
Thereafter
were were kings. Mhmm.
And the majority of Al Asal Barawi says,
they don't mind calling the them Khalifa, but
in the the linguistic sense, you know, a
successor in the linguistic sense. Linguistic sense, you
know, a successor
in the linguistic sense.
So we we have to compare them to
their times
because they belong to their times more than
the than their,
style of governance belong to the Islamic ideas.
This The second thing that we have to
also
recognize is that
their violence,
their wickedness
is not intrinsic to the concept of Khalifa.
So we have to also clear the concept
of Khalifa
as in,
you know,
simply political expression of Muslim unity
or political the actualization of Muslim unity in
the political sphere. There is this their violence
and their wickedness is really not intrinsic to
this concept. This concept
can be worked towards
without
basically bringing back those authoritarian regimes. And we
have to make this clear to the rest
of the Muslims.
The Muslims outside of our echo chambers,
because oftentimes we talk like we talk as
if we were talking to this group or
that group but the vast majority of Muslims
the 95 percent
are outside of our echo chambers.
We need to comfort them. We need to
tell them that
we need to put things in perspective for
them and tell them to we wanted them
to be proud of their history. We wanted
them to to to be proud of
the
accomplishment of
our nation as a nation, as a people
As a civilization. The accomplishment of the civilization,
the accomplishment,
The Sharia being the backbone of this. You
know, the Islamic law, Islamic rule being the
backbone that protected
us, that kept like a thriving civilization,
kept us from chaos, kept us from,
like,
perpetual strife, It kept us from backwardness
and pushed us forward and caused progress and
development and so on.
The Sharia, not the Khalifa,
was the backbone of this. The community, not
the Khalifa,
was basically the driving force of this. And
we wanted this people to be proud and
people to have confidence
in their history, and we wanted to assure
them
that we're not
calling for the return of such oppressive regimes.
We would be at the forefront of opposing
the a return to such oppressive regimes. And
when we talk about the Khalifa, when we
talk about political realization of Muslim unity or
things of that nature,
We're talking about a completely different concept.
We're talking about,
like,
an a new iteration that is suitable for
the times and that would basically be,
committed to the Islamic ideals of.
You know?
And and if you say that this sounds
like the slogan of the French revolution, adlin,
ifan, umsoa,
but these are Islamic ideas. Yes. These are
Islamic ideas.
No one can argue about this.
No one can argue about these concepts being
Islamic. So now
moving forward to like a modern conceptualization
of Al Khalafah
as I said I
you know when I was growing up I
am indebted to
sheikh abir Hassanal nadwih in
in terms of,
tempering my sort of zeal for the political
discourse or the, you know, or
the,
sort of the the
my prioritization of the political discourse
within the Islamic discourse, within the larger
Islamic discourse.
And I am also indebted to you know,
people like Al Abderazakas and Houri who,
had a book called
or you could say as well. It could
could work.
So so the and its development or its
evolution,
he was not a sheikh he was a
legal scholar or an Egyptian legal scholar
but he
he he had he was very sympathetic to
the idea of Khalifa,
and he wanted to figure out, sort of
different conceptualizations,
modern conceptualizations
of a Khalifa
in
the form of, you know like, his idea
would be,
the OIC, basically,
being effective
in,
bringing about unity, coordination,
confirmation,
integration,
confederation of Muslim states. So he was very
adamant that it has to be decentralized.
This idea
that people in Bangladesh and people in,
of Jakarta.
Jakarta and Morocco,
Casablanca,
Timbuktu,
and,
Bosnia
can be ruled by one central government
someplace in Baghdad or,
in Damascus.
He he figured that that's untenable. It's just
not gonna work. It would not work.
You can't even cross the borders from between
Morocco and Algeria. Like, the borders are closed
since Since 19 94 because of this. Since
1994,
the borders are closed between Morocco and Algeria.
So,
yes, that is not what we were we're
looking forward to. But again, at the same
time, we have to recognize that these are
different communities with different histories, different challenges, different
priorities,
different cultures, different priors
different many, many, many things.
So
it has to be decentralized.
And then we have to basically realize,
that unity among ourselves
without,
having a compulsive, oppressive,
central government somewhere
that is basically ruling over,
the entire Muslim world.
So could the OIC be developed to where
it becomes really effective in bringing about some
of these objectives, some of these goals? Yes.
You don't like the OIC because it is
basically useless. You think it is useless. That's
fine. Call it something else. Like but it
is that idea that idea of confederation of
winning,
community. Block. Weddings yeah. Each one maintains its
individual.
Yeah. I mentioned something similar in Mekel Haqqani.
And and then the idea of blocks also,
you know, the gunpowder empires.
3 gunpowder empires.
The the Ottomans, the Safavids, and the Mughals.
Mhmm. These are the 3 gunpowder empires.
Didn't they have some great accomplishments?
Yes. Because they were bigger blocks, bigger blocks,
more powerful.
It was not one
Khalifa. It was not you know a singular
and and certainly the Safavids, the and
then they were flanked by 2 Sunni,
empires to the from the right and left.
But but then, you know, as
bigger blocks, more powerful
blocks, they were able to achieve a lot.
So
so that conceptualization,
you
know, will help us
have different priorities. I don't have any problem
with people who,
aspire to, look forward to, dream of,
Muslim unity,
Muslim integration,
Muslim cooperation.
How could I? How could anyone who's, you
know Well, Muslim is good. Have a problem
with this? So
the problem that I have is,
people who exaggerate the priority of this,
people who have a rigid understanding
of what it means,
people who have an unrealistic
understanding
of the the different strategies that we can
take,
towards achieving this goal,
and people who have, like, an insistent fixation
on it. The the the, you know, and
and and people who,
you know that that goes back to the
issue of priorities.
People who
consider
the
that we have
as basically a means to establishing the governance
of god.
You know, so so they have this as
like an ultimate,
priority
which
which is really unfair to to Islam.
Allah
says, those that who, if we establish them
on earth or if we give them,
establish their authority on earth,
they will,
And the other area,
Allah
said,
So Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and this ayat
says it old. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala had
promised. Allah promised to those of you who
had faith and were righteous
that he will give them authority in the
land. Staghlifannu. Give them authority in the land.
So it's a product of faith and righteousness.
So
it is a product as Sheikh Al Hassan
you know emphasizes it a product of faith
and righteousness and eventually you'll have authority in
the land.
You Allah will establish your deen for you.
Allah will,
substitute security for the fear the fear that
you,
were afflicted by.
Then the ultimate goal after this is
to worship me
and ascribe no partners to me.
So this is the beginning and the end.
In the middle, the product of their iman
and amal salah will be
istighlaf
will be Sheyaf, let me pause you here
for these ayat.
Now I'm going to say something that I
don't necessarily agree with for the disclaimer.
But this is something that certain movements I
don't like mentioning. There's certain movements that are
so there's a whole spectrum of movements, like,
when when it comes to Islamic politics and
establishing it. There are some that are on
the very soft anti Khalifa, and there are
those that are very pro Khalifa.
Some of these movements that are on the
very not to enthuse about the Khalifa. They're
more into the terbiyyah. They're more into, like,
Dawah and Tabliyyah, whatever it might be. Some
of these movements,
their leaders have said,
and I've heard this myself because I was,
you know, we all grew up in the
same areas and whatnot and listening to them.
The leaders have said that this whole notion
of a Khalifa,
it has never been commanded explicitly in the
Koran.
And rather, there seems to be,
Allah, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, gifting it when we
deserve it.
And another famous one of them said
we should not be working towards a Khalifa.
Establish a Khalifa in your hearts and Allah
will establish it in the land.
So multiple strands of modern Muslim movements and
there is piety and iman and knowledge and
taqwa in them. So even though I personally
don't agree with that those strands,
but multiple strands
have this notion
of extreme
quietism and apolitical
activism.
And they interpret the Quran,
and Sun obviously and Sira, they interpret
this to indicate that
it is not a part of our Sharia
to actively
challenge
the rulers and get involved in the dirty
business of politics as one of them said.
Rather, what we should do is strive to
be pure spiritually
and amongst our own, you know, circle of
influence. And when that happens,
Allah will gift us and they they read
this in the Quran in the Sira. Aladinahimbaqnaforothers,
you know.
So these movements argue that in fact we
should not be
actively
working towards this type of political,
unity
primarily because they say it's gonna backlash it.
So we and so what would you say
to that?
Yeah. That that's important. That's why I repeated
the name of Sheikh Abdul Hassan Nadeh several
times because,
because he was not,
basically
extreme to the right or or the left.
No. That that was the Yeah. And left.
Like, so he like, he represents me in
that in that particular area.
And, I I have referred to his book
because I think that you would benefit more
reading his book than listening to my to
my speech here.
And I don't agree with this.
People who know me know that I am
inclined towards
sentences. It does not mean the send sentences
is always right because there is no sentences
between Tawhid and Shirk. I understand this, and
I understand all the rebuttals. And I understand
that everything we said today can be refuted,
and you could write articles about it, and
you could refute it in podcasts also and
stuff like that.
I'm completely aware of this, but I have
been always inclined to our sense of this.
And I do see where they they
and and I'm I have been always
open to and exposed to different,
thinking,
grew or
styles of,
thinking and,
approaches to the and approaches to this particular,
issue.
I have never deprived myself of the opportunity
to listen to, different groups and different people
attentively
and without bias or prejudice.
And I do see where they're coming from
because sometimes,
every action has, like, an yeah. Every action
has an sort of an equal and opposite
reaction.
And and sometimes the the
the the exaggeration in one direction brings about
exaggeration,
and in in another direction,
people think that when they do this, the
things balance out. But I think that it
would be best for all of us to
congregate a little bit closer to the middle,
closer to the, you know,
which would be
important. If
If
Muslim unity and if if all expressions of
Muslim unity and and the political sphere is
one of this, those spheres, if all,
expressions of Muslim unity are desirable,
We have to we have to basically ask
ourselves the question,
is this something desirable or not desirable?
Like Allah wants
Allah wants us to be 1 Ummah. I
don't think anybody would argue that it is
not desirable. Okay. So if it is desirable,
why should we not be working towards it?
Why should we not basically
be why should we not keep the dream
alive?
Why should we not keep the dream alive?
Jayed,
they would say I sat down with 1
one shayef that people actually accuse of
being anti Khalifa. Mhmm. Like, a very prominent
and a very great chief, a very traditionalist,
who people accused of being anti Khalifa.
And I spoke I I spoke with him,
you know,
about
keeping the dream alive
and different conceptualizations,
modern conceptualization of Khalifa.
And he was not he was completely
open to this.
So
sometimes
when people say this sheikh is is anti
Khalifa or or
he's comes across with their language. It's it's
an accusation that that is basically
based on the sheikh's
the sheikh's
resentment
of over fixation
or or exaggeration
or unrealistic
expectations.
So he's he may sometimes say something
that would,
mean to the to to to his adversaries
that he's anti Khalifa, but no. You know,
no one no one is arguing that,
it would not be a good idea for
Muslims to actualize their unity in all spheres,
economical,
political,
you know, certainly, most importantly,
and and that would be the priority,
the the loyalty to, and allegiance to the
believers. It's one religious community. It's one faith,
community.
So
that
that social
unity
should precede all,
other forms of unity.
But then if we agree that there's something
desirable, just like everything that is desirable, work
for it. You don't say that, you know,
I'm,
if if you're thirsty, don't say that Allah
subhanahu wa ta'ala will bring me water. You
just like You work for it. Yes.
So to speak on their behalf, and again
for the record, this is not my view
because my view is very clear in the
Khatr. I believe it is generic fakti fi,
but it's just not on the top. You
know, 10 or 20 things in in the
in in my own list of priorities.
But to speak on their behalf, Sheykhana, I'm
gonna mention a name here because I interviewed
him and that interview did cause a backlash
against him.
Doctor. Akram Naidui, our respected elder and senior,
I interviewed him I think a year and
a half ago, and I asked a similar
question about, you know, Khalaf and and working
towards it and whatnot. And
it came across to many of the viewers
that he was extremely dismissive of the notion.
And he said the best
mechanism in our times for the Muslim,
to flourish is actually,
secularism
where the religion is not enforced. And he
said, look around you. You know, the most
active Muslims and the most, you know,
best organizations in western lands that allow this
freedom to do that. And look back home
and you see the repression and oppression going
on here. And so he actually, you know,
seemed to discourage that. Now I'm gonna speak
a little bit not necessarily on his behalf
to defend because he he can do that
himself. But to be clear here and I
know the Sheikh very well,
it's not as if any of them are
anti Khalifa.
It is that
in their view,
this notion
of where we are to how to get
to this ideal is not a possibility.
The journey is not going to happen. And
our attempts to undertake the journey in their
minds are going to backlash on us. Right.
To the point of it not being conducive
to our flourishing and our welfare. And so
from their perspective,
the and this is, other senior ulama, the
famous one, you know, the one of the
leaders of the the Tasfiya Tarbia type of
movement, the leader of the Tasfiya, like, don't
even worry about the Khalifa. Establish it in
your heart. Look at his own history. The
guy was with utmost love and respect. We
all love him. He was jailed 3 times.
He was tortured in jail. You know? He
had to constantly monitor oppressive regimes in his
own lifetime.
So to have that type of psychological
reality
where you have lived a very difficult life
and you simply want to practice your faith
and preach and teach, it's
quietism and pacifism in this regard
in which
it's not that they are rejecting Allah sharia.
It is rather they are seeing
that the way to get from point a
to point b
is
fraught with not just dangers but
death. You're not gonna get there and you
will end up harming
the ummah. And so from their perspective because
their priorities are the worship of Allah and
Tasfiya and Tarbiyyah or Taww and Tawil, whatever
it might be, from their priorities,
it doesn't make sense to jeopardize that which
is more important for that which is lesser
important.
Would you disagree with my analysis of theirs
of their work? No. And and since you
mentioned the name of the sheikh, I didn't
want to mention the name of the sheikh,
but it is sheikh Akram Nadwi that I
sat with. And I told them, why can't
we keep khilafa as a or
like a it's like a final Exactly. And
I wanted to defend that, that he's not
anti in Africa. He's Yeah. So this sort
of would be not the effective cause of
the Renaissance, not sufficient cause, not necessary cause,
But basically like a final cause, like an
ultimate goal
or ideal
that will attract us, that will motivate us,
energize us, or pull us towards that, end
goal of sort of more Muslim unity, and
and and this actualization and different spheres including
the political sphere. And the Sheikh was completely
open to this. So I see. Yes. Yes.
No. Sheikh is gonna deny. If you were
to offer us Abu Bakr Rasooled radiAllahu anhu
anhu right here, who's gonna say no to
that? If the issue comes where we are
now to how to get there. Right? Yes.
So so so,
basically,
the
and I don't always agree with Erdogan or
you know? And and I have my own
sort of
reservations about things that he does and things
that he says and things that he did
in the past. But look at
his model. I mean, I look at, you
know,
where Turkey was when he assumed leadership
and where Turkey is now.
Do you see
improvement?
Do you see improvement on the religious,
front? Do you see improvement in the economical
front? Do you see improvement on the political
front? Yes. I understand that people are very,
upset with Turkey now because of letting down
the the people in Gaza.
And I I'm not,
it's not a defense. This is not yeah.
So I'm not
but at the end of the day, just
point a and point b, where, like, where
Turkey was when he assumed leadership, where Turkey
is now. Do you see improvement?
Do you see
similar improvement
in other places? I don't.
Like, you know, Malaysia
had,
like, some degree of improvement under
a great deal of improvement.
And, you know, I I pray for the
success. I pray for the progress.
But I have not seen anything in modern
times That comes close even. Comes close to
this Erdoganite
Exactly. And when you say this, the idealists
always point out that long list of negatives
which are true. And I can't defend that.
Yes. But compare compare that to others out
there is all that we're saying. Exactly. So
I think that's what Shaka Khan Radhoo is
is trying to say is, like, you know,
make this a model,
towards, like,
improve the betterment of the Muslim condition
in in different countries, like
and and start at the local level. It
has to be local. Mhmm. You'll have to
prioritize,
you know, the the
local community.
Because how do you how do you get
to Al Khalifa?
How do you get there? You want people
that are willing.
What what you're trying to do is what
you're trying to do is like this idea
of marching the troops is not going to
work.
That this idea of basically shaming people into
it is not going to work. Like you
know you you have countries that have per
capita GDP of
$130,000 You have countries that have per capita
GDP of,
$1500
How do you convince those people who have
a per capita GDP of $130,000
to share their money
with those who have a per capita GDP
of $1500.
Like how do you convince Qatar to come
into a union with Egypt, for instance, and
share their money with the 100,000,000
people in Egypt?
You know? It's not going to happen. Yeah.
So, like, you can't march the troops. You
can't shame them into it. So it has
to be like an alliance of
the willing, you know, like an alliance of
willing communities, willing nations,
that that want to basically,
benefit
from from,
unity,
from cooperation
coordination integration
you know why don't we start at the
local level why don't we figure out our
problems with in each one of those countries?
Why can't we look towards righteous governance in
the individual countries? And people keep on saying
that this type of pragmatic,
this type of pragmatic discourse
has failed to capture the imagination of the
youth,
has failed
basically,
to make any event in reality or capture
the imagination of the youth or to have,
like, a bold vision.
And
and I I do have great respect for
for for those people, but sometimes
there are 22 concepts here that get conflated.
The idea of thinking outside the box is
a is a great idea. You do need
to think outside the box,
but
what box are we talking about? There has
to be common sense.
There has to be an objective reality.
So sometimes I feel that some of our
great,
you know, 1st and second generation
Muslims in the west
are actually, captive of postmodernist
relativism.
Mhmm. And this idea of thinking outside the
box
is basically a product of postmodernist
relativism,
more than it is like a bold vision
or Can you elaborate on that, Sheikh? Okay.
By example, what do you mean?
You know,
thinking outside the box, basically,
presenting
clearly unrealistic ideas,
or clearly unrealistic
solutions.
And can you know, considering
the opposition to be
too what
Unable to
to have sort of a greater
vision or bolder
vision,
captive to
their,
captive to their timidity,
captive to their,
intellectual
deficiency.
So when it comes to to to the
Khalifa and when it comes to
proposing,
you know,
ideas that would sound to the rest of
the people
unrealistic,
unfeasible.
So to be clear then, one of the
examples in your mind
are those movements that
are demanding
an immediate,
political entity without
going through requisite steps. Is that one? Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. You know? Okay. Yeah. Just that
would be clear.
So basically
So, Sheikh, let's get now a bit more
again specific now. And again, excuse me for
my bluntness, but this needs to be we
need to speak very specifically about these realities.
We're well aware that the Khalifa,
the Ottoman Caliphate, despite its ups and downs
of our history, at least we had something,
but the Ottoman Caliphate came to an ending
literally 100 years ago, a month ago. And
since that point in time,
multiple thinkers, multiple movements, multiple strands
have attempted to reengage the ummah in different
ways. And by the way, just coincidentally, I'm
literally before you came, I was reading this
book. I'm reading the finishing up by Sheikh
Rashid Riddha.
Al Khilafah, William Ams Al Uthma, you know?
Which is a series of articles in Al
Manaar,
that He was one of the very active
people. Yes. And so he began writing there's
like, well, 15 articles. So the first article
was written when the Khalaf was on its
downfall. Mhmm. And the last article written in
the Khalaf was gone. And so it's a
100 years ago, literally. So I'm just reading
this now to get over. And it's just
I personally resonate a lot with the Imam
Sheikh Rashid in many aspects, including this one.
So after the collapse of the Ottoman Khalifa,
we saw a myriad
of thinkers and movements
attempt to renegotiate
the ummah.
And factually speaking, I'm not taking a side
here, I'm simply analyzing the bird's eye view.
All of these movements
stopped
making the Khalifa
and the reurgence of the reemergence of the
Khalifa at the very top of the list,
except for one primary movement.
So you had an entire and since they
passed away, we can move mention some names
here. You mentioned Ajay Abul Hasan in Edoui.
Even the Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood
and the Jamaat Islami
realized that maybe the Khalifa is a bit
too long term. Let's just get with our
own countries and try to Islamify them. Right?
And of course, then you had the Tasfi
and Tarbiyyah, the Salafi movements, the Sufi movements,
the establishment, the traditionalist. You had all of
these movements. None of
them made their primary,
agenda, the immediate agenda, the constant agenda, the
establishment of the Khalifa. Some of them made
it
once in a while, and some of them
took a very,
it looks anti Khalifa status. But as we
explained,
it's that they thought that it's not feasible,
not that they didn't want it. Right. Only
one movements and and we know which one
it is, the followers of respect to Sheikh
Tukhidh Nibani. We respect and ask Allah to
bless under warn him. Only one movement really
made this the front and center, the the
dendena, the the the primary issue here. Right?
What are your thoughts on
why this is the case,
that all of these other movements did not
make it to the level that, you know,
this movement did? And
you yourself, you already said you you you
aligned towards Abu Hazani Nidawi. Who else besides
Nidawi
would you find your heart aligning to in
this entire myriad of movements here?
And I know it's a personal question, but,
I mean, I just Rashid Rada, of course,
is one is one of them, but I,
you know, I have written a post last
year about,
reviving the legacy of Rashid Reda because it
seems,
you know, I
a lot of people have,
their reservations against the Sheikh Rashid Iridah because
of sectarian reasons and because of other reasons.
Amidst then lies. Well, lies so much lies
against him. There are so many lies. Slanders.
Yeah. But he was a great scholar. And,
you know, you don't have to agree with
every scholar or any scholar. You you can't
even agree with Abu Bakr Sadiq on everything.
Mhmm. There's only one person that you agree
have to agree with on everything. But,
anyway so
so what I wanted to say is that
people
people,
particularly and,
these were the turbulent times, and people had
every right
to to be sad about the,
cessation of the Khalifa.
But people also need to be
truthful, honest with themselves, realistic.
This idea, for instance, that you you hear
sometimes that had we had a Khalifa,
what is happening to the people in Hazdana
would have never happened. No. It's untrue.
It's untrue. The Khalifa is neither a sufficient
or a necessary cause
for Muslim power, for Muslim
dignity, for if you have, big blocks like,
you know,
without them being the hadithas. By the way,
the Ottomans
for a very good portion of the beginning
of their dynasty. They were not calling themselves
kharifa. They even were calling Caesar,
before kharifa. A lot of people don't know
this. Issue. It's very politically incorrect to say.
When they conquered Constantinople,
they wanted to actually preserve and resume the
Roman empire.
And people don't wanna say this, but it's
it's the reality. Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. But
if we have, like, 3 big blocks like
those blocks,
you know, you could do a lot with
3 big blocks like this. You could do
a lot with, you know, regional powers,
different regional
powers that coordinate among themselves that because
I
we are we repeat
Muslim unity we are 1 and
every expression of that unity is desirable and
and we should be working towards every expression
of of that unity.
But
how powerful you are matters.
If Egypt
if Egypt were as powerful as,
Great Britain Great Britain is is not much
bigger than Egypt, size wise, population wise. But
even if Egypt were as powerful as Great
Britain,
would you have expected,
different
sort of
behavior from from Egypt
during this crisis?
Of course.
Of course.
Had the spirits of my people give me
given me the power to speak, I would
have spoken.
But the spirits of my people held me
back
because because of the weakness of my people.
So,
in in this idea that had we had
a khilafa, that this would have never happened.
Well, we had the
Khalifa, and 90%
of Muslim countries were under occupation
during
Yeah. Were colonized Yeah.
While we have the Khalifa.
So
why are we not being honest?
Like, why can't we be honest?
Why can't we say that this is this
is desirable?
This is
a good end goal. This should motivate us,
energize us, make us work together
to bring about more Muslim loyalty, allegiance, unity,
cooperation,
coordination,
integration,
and all of that stuff,
but,
place it where it belongs in the list
of priorities.
Where would you place it, Jeff? Mhmm. Where
would you place it roughly? In the top
5, in the top or the next 30,
or the bottom 10 out of a 100,
like, roughly?
I wouldn't because I I wouldn't be inaccurate.
But I would say that, like, for for
the individual Muslim in in in a Muslim
majority country,
he would not be this would not be
a priority for him
at this time.
The you know, basically,
the Islamic way of life and as I
said we have
to shift the focus
to the Sharia.
And as in Sanmuri
said, it is also
reform has to be an essential ingredient in
this. So by reform you mean Rifisla Hanafs
or what? No, reform
of legal reform. Okay. You know, the adaptability
of the Sharia to current realities.
Because that has to be in order for
the Sharia, in order for the Sharia's relevance
and applicability,
continued applicability,
there has to be reform
in order for it to survive and to
continue to be relevant and to continue to
be applicable
it has to be a reform and as
we said the the divine address is not
changing, but the realities are changing.
And then those realities
will fit under different principles as they change.
So you're calling for a reform in?
Legal reform. Like
like, tajdeed.
Of how? Like, again, specific Sheikh because this
is all slogans. Like,
give me, like, an example of what you
what you're trying to get to to bring
about here. Okay. So so when where, you
know, I I can give you, like
so so if if you say that the
Sharia, for instance, says,
that the longest duration of pregnancy is 4
years or 2 years or 7 years. Ref
No. Yeah.
No one would believe that. If you say,
like So there are many opinions, Sheikh, that
are mentioned in the books, a
fiqh. That War. War.
The word war. War.
Should the should the default Default. Relationship be
war or or peace?
The war itself, are we talking about the
same thing? Are we talking about, you know,
a couple of 1,000 people sparring in a
battlefield?
So we're talking about nuclear and chemical weapons.
Yeah. So
should this make it should this make a
difference? Should this make the war even a
remote
or a last resort
for for us? So you're calling for a
re understanding and rethinking through specific Juziyah Tefik,
specific Mirushafiyah.
Of course, this is something I've been saying
for many, many years. Obviously, the critics, they
lose track of what you're trying to say.
The accusation becomes you are a reformer, a
reformist. You are making the hadith any the
the hadith al sharia.
Absolutely. Now Sharia is the Exactly. Objectives of
Sharia,
the principles of Sharia are fixed, but we're
talking about the different realities
that will fit under different principles. And that's
exactly how Hermann Schadawi
said that these realities, the the they don't
change the Sharia, but they
meet different principles, or they the the deserve
to have different principles
applied to them.
But the Sharia then
will be
at the heart of the Islamic way of
life. Of course, devotion to God is is
the utmost priority.
No one would argue about this,
but when it comes to organizing
our Islamic way of life at the local
level,
the sharia will be the central pillar, and
it is,
you know,
a moderate
in the sense a true sense of
moderate, not in
basically,
what the the so called modern modernist,
sense
of
in the true sense of
that's deed by qualified scholars that's deed by
qualified scholars
to keep the Sharia relevant, to keep the
Sharia applicable,
and to organize,
our communities around the Sharia being the backbone.
We start there,
and then
when we have improved realities
at the local level in different countries, those
countries would realize
the benefit
in
the importance of and the benefit in coming
together. We should not succumb to pressure,
you know,
by,
people adverse whether they are adversaries
or whether they are just
like, non Muslims looking at the the concept
of a Khalifa. They they have their own,
sort of
conceptualization
of the Khalifa, and they're opposed to it.
While Europe is trying to or to to
come together, Europe
has tried to come together
for decades now.
And
the sentiment
that many Europeans have against the Turkish membership
in Europe is based on
religious,
Exactly. Islamophobia.
Basically. Yeah. Yeah. So why should Muslims not
aspire
to,
towards unity? Why should Muslims be, denied
the right to aspire towards greater unity Yeah.
Among themselves?
So
but this will have to come after
we make some progress at the local level.
In in our countries,
we need to have
righteous governance because this righteous governance you know
if you have
representative
governance
if you have
representative
leadership,
they will prioritize
the benefits
of the Ummah or the the benefit of
the Ummah over their personal,
benefit.
And then in this case,
you know, larger unity,
bigger blocks.
You know?
Just Morocco and Algeria and Tunisia come in
together. You know? They can have Libya as
well. We we can have Sudan, so it
doesn't matter.
You're Egyptian.
I'm just kidding. Just kidding.
But I'm I'm trying to say you have,
like, bigger blocks
that that
that would realize the benefits. Realize the benefits
of coming together. Like bigger markets, you know,
like economic integration.
Who,
you know who would not realize, but
we need to have
representative governments
that will realize the benefits
of coming together and eventually,
you
know, working,
gradually
towards greater unity among
the Ummah. So sheikh, we were speaking for
a long time. Let's kind of wind down,
but we still have a few topics. But
let's wind down inshallah in this regard.
So listening to you, you sound very similar
to what I myself was saying, in my
heart that are which again is not relevant
to this podcast. It just happened that I'm
giving my talks here. You are, I would
say, a a
soft advocate of a generic unity.
You are not constantly,
obsessing with this notion of khilafah, khilafah, khilafah.
You understand that,
you know, it's a
it's an it's an aspirational goal
which has a lot of practical impediments that
we have to be very cautious of. Not
just along the way but even when we
get to the end we don't want
a ideal, you know, Khalifa to then easily
be corrupted into much of what we've seen
in the past as well. So,
in this regard Sheikh then, these are from
Muslim majority lands. Let's quickly do some easy
stuff. Obviously,
Muslim minority situations, us here in America.
Obviously, I've said this very publicly and very
clearly.
It is not
something that the Sharia asks of us to
do in minority situations to aspire to,
a khilafa or to aspire to,
political dominance and to overthrow the internal system
in a coup d'etat. I've said this very
publicly. That's not what the Sharia requires of
us. That is political suicide. We are not
people of double agendas that we say something
publicly and we practice something privately. Any disagreement
with that or any caveats to add or
anything of this nature?
No. If if the US is willing to
participate in a Khalifa system, we're we're okay
with that. But, of course, we're not going
to force we're we're not basically going to
overthrow the government here
and to make the US part of a
And this is not just double talk. This
is not just this is this is a
genuine this is and this is a genuine
shutter How could you realistically
expect this? Like, the what did the prophet
sallallahu alaihi wa sallam ask the people in
in Habasha to overthrow,
the system even before Najashi converted to Islam?
Was he sending them there to overthrow the
system, or was he sending them there to
find refuge,
peace, and justice?
That's what we that's what he sent them
for. Yes. And that they continue to live
in Habasha for, you know, several years after
the establishment of Al Medina, and they have
not
tried while they were there
to bring Al Habashah under the fold of
the Madinan,
central government.
Jayed, so that's it is not,
a tactical goal. It might be an aspiration.
I want people in this part of the
world to embrace Islam, and I want, once
they do so, to join the larger ummah.
I don't have any issue with that. Uh-huh.
But it is not a tactical,
goal that we sit and plan for, make
taktiv for. Okay? Jahid, so this is we're
in agreement in this regard. Now, another,
question or point, Sheikh, in this regard is
that
we have spoken about all these different movements.
We have I think we're
both very clearly
we would situate ourselves centrist. Of course, centrist
is relative because those to the left of
us think they're centrist. All the time. All
the time. Yeah. But by and large, I
feel that our notions of political activism and
of Khalifa
and Islamic Yani,
political, unity, I think we're very, very similar,
if not exactly on the same point on
the spectrum here. But now the question arises.
The theoretical,
sorry, the not the theoretical, the theological question.
And this was was not planned. That's This
was not planned. Orchestrated. This is the reason
Exactly. Independent examination of the issue. Exactly. And
sheikh, I mean, no matter how much I
love and respect you I haven't studied under
you even though I wish I could. And
of course you are too too. So yet
still our goals and our views are completely
in this in harmony here. Now, Sheikh, here's
the Akadi question. And I have my views
as well, but I'm gonna hear your views.
Here's the Akadi question.
We spoken about this entire spectrum of movements.
Right?
I don't mind mentioning now because we're not
gonna mention names. You have the,
general tussle wolf trend around the world, which
is generally speaking
supposed to be apolitical. It is not supposed
to be involved in any type of aspirational
politics. Right? How far they are from ideal
is another thing. But generally, that is their
goal. You have, of course, Yamat Adawat Tablir.
Okay? And you have the
mainstream Jordanian
Salafism,
which became global in the nineties, which is
and and established the khilaf in your heart
and Allah
You have all of these movements, I would
say, roughly in a similar
ballpark
of not doing anything active to establish the
Khalifa.
Then you have on the exact opposite side,
Hizb ut Tahir and the followers of Takeda
Takeda Limbhani. And I say this factually, not
any derogatory term.
That is their
constant,
I don't use that term. There's their constant
bringing up of this notion number 1 on
the list, and it is as if this
is the ultimate priority for them.
Then you have the brotherhood and the Jamaat
Islami, and we both have associations with them.
For the record, I was born into a
family. My parents were very active in Jamat
and and what Modi's party. So I grew
up with that type of activism. So you
have that
group, and then you have, you know, political
Salafism and others in this. So you have
an entire spectrum here, Sheikh. The question, the
Aqadi question is as follows.
Where does one draw the line of Islamic
orthodoxy
in this entire gamut of apolitical
versus
the Khalifa is Abu Jabal Wajibat.
Right? Where in your humble opinion is the
line of Sunni orthodoxy
such that if you go beyond it, you
become Muqtadir?
And what is the line of Kufr such
that you go beyond that you are a
kafir?
So this spectrum, I wanna hear from you.
And I have my views. I'll I'll follow
you up. But again, this guy is completely
unscripted. I have no clue what this is
gonna say. So let's hear this and then
you can hear my views. We can go
back and forth.
Well, this takes us back to the issue
of Al Khalifa being a theological issue or
a legal issue. Is it, like, part of
the or part of faq, part of law,
or part of creed?
And in all honesty, you it it will
be problematized
what I would say what whatever I may
say here, it would be problematized
because of certain hadith and because of certain,
positions of the scholars or or or even
scholarly practice.
We have a hadith, for instance, like,
Whoever dies without having pledged allegiance to an
imam, he will die in the state of
Jahadiyyah. So it gives you it it makes
some people think that this may actually be
a matter of creed.
But is this talking about Khalifa, or is
just simply talking about order versus anarchy? Is
it talking about, you know,
like, shedding the Muslim blood and violating the
rights of people and being, like,
not
joining civilization,
not not coming together and and creating a,
like, a a community of,
law and order.
I think that this is basically a condemnation
of anarchy, a condemnation
of rebellion and anarchy. It is not
pointing to a single political entity,
no matter how desirable that may be.
So,
but then it it will also be problematized
by the practice of Muslim scholars who included,
you know, in their Aqidah books, discussions about
the kharafa and discussions about the imam.
But from a Sunni perspective, I would say
that it belongs to law more than it
belongs to law and not creed. Excellent point.
So to reiterate,
the establishment
of a Khalifa
is more of a shari'i,
meaning, a fiqi issue than it is an
Aqidah one. Yes. But why did they include
it in Aqidah books? Because the Khalifa issue,
the imama issue, to us
was,
the trinity to Christians or the nature of
God to Christians. We did not disagree over
the nature of God. But this Ummah,
split up over the imam. From the beginning.
From the very beginning. Modism. So the denominations
the different denominations,
that that was a defining issue
for the, you know, the breakup,
between the different sects of this.
Therefore,
it's like when they include
or,
wiping over the the leather socks
in their apida books because it is a
defining issue,
you know, and and they they want to
basically include in the Akita books that which
sorts us out from or separates us, distinguishes
us from other sects. But is it really
a archivar issue? No. It is not an
archivar issue. I don't believe that it is
IP the issue. It's a legal issue,
that should just be has been discussed in
the in the in the FERC tradition.
The one thing that borders on a p,
the issue is the issue of order versus
anarchy. You know, that that
Shaykh, I'm gonna I'm gonna
reiterate what I said earlier. It appears to
me these hadith
and and the concept of,
them not bearing the prophet salAllahu alaihi wa
sallam alaihi sorry, not yeah, until they had
established, you know, the law, khilafa. It appears
to me you're understanding this more
as a system of governance
that prevents anarchy.
Hence,
when those movements come along and say, how
can you not prioritize the
Khalifa and you're saying well it's not the
top priorities as you have said. I said
it's not 10 not not not top 10
and 20. How can you not prioritize when?
And then they'll quote you all of these
quotations and they'll quote you the very low
the process. Someone they had is your response
and also my response is you are mixing
apples and oranges.
You're using all of these evidences for something
that we're not talking about. Right? And that
is that,
of course, after the death of the Prophet,
they needed a leader or else there would
be complete chaos and anarchy. Right.
We have a semblance of we're not saying
we have a khilafa or none of these
countries are. We're not saying we have a
kham was sharia being applied, but we're saying
much of the goals
that because of which
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and Al Qurtubi and Al
Shattu and others said what they said.
And the reason why they were so eager
to have a leader
is that the absence of it leads to
complete chaos and civil war.
And so we have now infrastructures in place
that
mitigate that overall notion that is derived from
this hadith, even though what is derived from
the hadith is not exactly what we're seeing
around us, if that makes sense here. Of
course. And so so let us work on
improving incremental improvement of the systems that we
have. And I understand that people have grievances
against the concept of nation state, and they
would consider anyone who
surrenders to the
to the reality
of nation state or or worse. As a
defeatist.
But It's not. It's pragmatist. Yeah. Well well,
let's let's let's What's the alternative?
Let's fix them. Yeah. Let's let's fix our
nation states. Let's
make them better so that they can come
together and realize the importance of unity.
But that is the the first step is
is to improve the to better the reality
of different Muslim nations. Yeah. Yeah. So then
let me then give you, in summary, my
own understanding. And again, feel free to disagree.
Again, I'm a little bit a little bit
disappointed that we haven't actually disagreed substantively about
anything yet. Our readers might think our viewers
might think we are coordinating Orchestrating this. Is
no orchestration. In my humble opinion, Sheikh, and
please feel free to disagree. I wanna hear
this. In my humble opinion,
All of these movements
are within
orthodoxy.
They're not even outside the spectrum of Sunnism,
proper technical Sunnism,
those that are apolitical
pacifists
and are hesitant at political activism
and those that prioritize and wanna make it
number 1, in my humble opinion, just on
this one issue, they are all within the
mainstream.
And none of them, in my humble opinion,
is more correct than the other, and this
is Ikhilaf Jah is and Sa'ir.
When would it become bidah? It would become
bidah when you
narrow down the spectrum
and you claim only your segment
is the orthodox way and those who oppose
you are now theologically
deviant, by you making them deviance,
you have in effect made yourself
ahlul bida by
prioritizing or by making something which Yani, as
I said, I don't mind the movement that
prioritizes Khalifa. I don't even think that issue
of them makes them misguided. I think they're
a bit wrong. I also use the term
sometimes naive and they use it back at
me. It's a two way street here and
I understand that point. That is what it
is. But it is not theologically problematic.
But it will become theologically problematic
when they do not return the same favor
back onto us. And they say unto us
that you are misguided
Islamically
because you have not followed our interpretation. This,
in my humble opinion, is my understanding of
Orthodox in this regard. Any,
disagreement in this or any, comments in this?
No. I I I think that you like,
I I would just rephrase some some things.
Like, you said that none of them is
more correct than the other.
That would be, like, an issue that
I I'll like a statement that I would
rephrase because you said that you believe that
the particular group is wrong.
So if they're wrong, then some some of
these groups are more correct than others. Correct.
Not in a theological So from a theological
standpoint There is there. I did I did
already say that this is a legal issue.
It may,
some of the disagreement may stem from
theological,
backgrounds or orientations,
you know,
where the our understanding of,
you know,
you know, human agency
of,
and and the issue of free will or
determinism or
so so some
some No. No. No. No. Just to reiterate,
I'm not saying these movements are all
correct in all that they say. Yeah. I'm
saying because of their stance on this issue,
I don't make the deal of any Oh,
no. No. Yeah. I I don't make the
deal of any That's what I'm saying. Where
they place a falafel. That's Exactly. That's the
priority. That's my point. This Ikhtilaf
is Ikhtilafja is in Saher. Yes. That was
my point. Yes. Okay. So then there is
no tabdir to be done in any of
these movements for this one issue. That was
my so then we're agreement there. And Takhtir
Shaf, honestly, I can't see it happening
in this regard unless somebody which goes beyond
this issue of Khalafah.
They say we don't want a ham of
Allah which I can't imagine a Muslim or
Aqir or somebody. That's like you're talking about
the a secularist who doesn't believe in Allah's
religion. I can't see takfir coming in our
talk of khilafa per se in this regard.
Mhmm.
No. I don't I don't see that. But,
like, the people who have deny loyalty to
the believers
nobody denies loyalty to the believers. Even the
most apolitical people would say
that, this loyalty to this. In fact, I'll
even go further and say the reason why
I say this entire spectrum is permissible theologically
is the hallmark of Sunnism.
That's the whole point in my humble understanding
and my interpretation of this regard. This is
Al Hadd al Falsl between us and the
Khawarij
and the,
Shia. Right?
They had they
theologized
politics.
Mhmm. And we don't do that. Of course.
The imam for for shia is is
a imam of for shia is a complete
it's. You know? And and It's a And
for the,
any disagreements became.
That's the whole point. Al haddul fasr. For
us, Adi and Muawiy radiallahu anhu and more
than that, all of these were, you can
choose your side. You can fight on one
side. You don't become Ahlul Bida. Right? If
this is the case from back then and
you had political pacifists, you had quietists, you
had people on both sides, you had people
doing much more than just verbalizing in this
regard. If you don't become a Muqtadir in
this entire spectrum,
then a priori mimbabi ola, 1,400 years later,
what are you doing? We don't have a
khilafa, and you have all of these movements
and thinkers and ulama and mufakirin
wanting to figure out what is the best
way forward. Right? And all of them theoretically
love Allah sharia and want to see an
an established Sharia. It's just a matter of
different people have different perceptions of the means
and the pros and cons of the means.
And so in this regard, choose your strand
and be active in that strand, but do
not bring in the tabdih card when it
comes to all of these mainstream movements. So
again, I think then so you agree with
me that in this issue at least,
there is no
bidah taking place in all of the movements
I mentioned. From the apolitical
to even, and I disagree with them many
ways, but there it's not a bidah issue,
the HT in this regard. Right? And,
the the the the the the priority of
the brotherhood and the Islamist parties or whatnot,
the it's not even the Khalifa anymore. The
priority is to Islamicize
their societies,
right?
And that is also permissible in this regard.
And then you have again the Salafis and
the Sufis. You're just interested in their own
versions of Aqid and and and Tosef and
whatnot. This is not even a Bida' in
this regard. So and then and this were
in agreement, so then in reality, the only
bid'ah would be
if you make this
so narrow that disagreement with you becomes a
theological
unorthodoxy. And,
basically, if if you if you have,
the Khalafat,
on your
sort of list of priorities or higher list
of priorities, please recognize
that the rest of the groups are helping
you. They're not harming you. You know? I
said this as well. You know? Exactly, Sheikh.
We're saying the same thing. We're not stopping
you. So that that's the B'ihamdara brothers that
go out to bring people to the
they're they're helping you. Yep. Exactly. You know,
the the the people who, you know, who
have an emphasis, the Salafis who have an
emphasis on, you know, the sunnah of the
prophet
and the, you know, hadith and and so
on. They're they're helping you. They're bringing more
people. They're making more people interested in, you
know, the way of the the the people
who have
an emphasis on devotion to Allah
and the the cleansing of the heart. They're
helping you. Every like, so recognize
that this is basically all,
and and, you know, I I have my
own
sort of,
or, basically, orientations,
whether theological,
legal,
or,
to scale wise. But but, I I can
see that these people yeah. Yeah. These there
are a lot of genuine, sincere people out
there that are trying to their best to
be better Muslims. And they they wish the
ummah well, and they want the best for
the ummah. And we are all on the
same wavelength when it comes to reviving the
love of Allah in people's hearts. It's just
different ways of doing so. So Masha'Allah, we've
spoken a lot. So let me then summarize
from my point of view a few minutes,
and then insha'Allah, I'll leave the final word
for you can summarize, what you want people
to go away with. My summary for the
viewers and and whatnot is is gonna echo
what I said a month ago. My opinions
haven't changed in 1 month despite all of
the pushback and refutations. It hasn't changed because
in my humble opinion, much of it is
is misunderstanding what I'm saying as we and
by the way, again, for the record, our
conversations were not scripted. I did not know
we would end up agreeing on so many
points of effect, maybe even everything. But Khorasa,
what I said,
you know, a few weeks ago, I'm gonna
reiterate here. In my humble reading of the
Quran and Sunnah, and looking at the Torah
of the Ulema including Shaf Rashid Roodar, read
his book if you have time to do
so.
It is clear to me in my humble
opinion, it is an opinion in she had
that.
There has always been a spectrum of of
of interactions with rulers and with the concept
of Khalifa, especially after the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire. And I don't see a theological
problem in any of these trends.
My personal sympathies
are more on the centrist side I. E.
To bring about a change at the local
level rather than to think about the, the
global level. And the reason for this is
not because astaghfirullah, anybody opposes the akam of
Allah. Anybody does not wanna see a khilafa.
The reason is because in my humble reading
of history and my own life experiences,
attempting to bring about that type of political
change is going to harm and backlash
you, your friends and family, your movement, and
frankly, all pious Muslims because the people that
are opposing you are generally speaking not religious
people. So for people to and this is
what our Sheikh Akram said bluntly is, like,
the only people that talk about the khilafa
are those that are living outside of it.
The only people that that want to establish
some Muslim rule are those living in secular
democracies. Because if you were living under those
tyrannical regimes, firstly, your perception would be different.
And secondly, you wouldn't even be allowed to
speak at all in this regard. So
in my humble assessment
we need to prioritize
that which will get us into Jannah. And
that is not in and of itself al
Khilafa. It is our relationship with Allah Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala, our implementation of the Sharia in
our personal lives, our commitment to our faith
and values, and organically,
slowly, without causing any bloodshed, without causing any
hardship on on on the people that is
unreasonable,
we start propagating a larger vision of Muslim
unity and seeing what we can accomplish in
this regard.
This is in a nutshell my summary. However,
anybody who disagrees,
I don't view it as a theological deviation.
And if somebody says
even that is unrealistic,
I understand as our sheikh doctor Akram has
a slightly different view. And if somebody says,
no, we wanna only talk about this, I
don't have a problem with that as long
as they don't have a problem with others
not being on their exact same wavelength. So
that's my khulasta and summary. Sheikhna, if you
can also summarize in a few minutes your
entire what you want the the viewer to
go away with inshallah, and that will be
our concluding remarks.
I would
I would say that,
no Muslim,
no Muslim in the world, I guess, who's
sincere Muslim, who's, learned Muslim,
would not want to see
more Muslim unity, cooperation, coordination,
integration,
allegiance, loyalty,
to to, the believers,
and all expressions,
all manifestations,
all the different types of actualization
of this unity are desirable,
but we need to have,
realistic
and grounded
understanding
of what is possible in this regard,
and we need to have also,
strategies
that are
conducive,
to this Muslim unity and that will take
in consideration
the,
the realities that the different Muslim communities
live in. Our ultimate goal should always be
the pleasure of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.
Is the,
ultimate
success
to,
actualize.
And
is
as
Sheikh Al Hassan said when he,
was trying to to,
use Imam Tamiyah's definition of to
stress the fact,
that
that the political,
the political expression of this is one expression.
It is not the ultimate expression. It's not
the only expression.
It is basically,
the ultimate love and adoration
mixed with ultimate,
submission and subjugation
to to Allah.
And I think that,
that this should be our ultimate goal,
and our work for
Muslim
unity should be part of the realization of
this ultimate goal.
We had a great time. Alhamdulillah. May
Allah accept from you. May Allah,
bring about,
that unity that we aspire to. May Allah,
Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, help us achieve
aspirationally that goal that we want. And, with
this Jazakmullahqir,
dear viewers, inshallah, I hope you can benefit.
And also please, if you do link to
a clip or whatnot, make sure you listen
to the entire interview and especially the concluding
statements that we both made. And with this,
until next time we have another conversation. We
do have another conversation planned, Insha'Allah. Until next
time,
Related Episodes
- Riad Ouarzazi – Tawbah The Way to Jannah
- Sulaiman Moola – The Demise of the Prophet SAW – Episode 07
- Munir Ahmed – COVID-19 – The Question of Cremation in Exceptional Circumstances
- The Deen Show – Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) VS Joseph Smith of The Mormon Church
- Faith IQ – Can I Still Eat Despite The Fajr Adhan Giving
- Ahsan Hanif – Quran Tafseer – Page 57 – The Story Of Isa
- Zakir Naik – About the timings of the Eid Salah