Transcription
Hello everyone, and welcome to Blogging Theology. And today, I'm delighted to welcome back Dr. TK Algawari.
You're most welcome. Thank you for having me again.
It's always a pleasure to have you on the podcast, I must say. Um, for those who didn't see previous podcasts, um, just to remind you that Dr. Tar is a teacher, a writer, and scholar of comparative religion and Islamic studies. He's the founder of the Making Sense of Islam platform, dedicated to developing tools that help Muslims connect with and be present in their faith and daily practices. And he currently serves as the General Director of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan, and is a professor of Shafi'i law at the Wise University, and the US representative for the General Secretariat for Fatwa Authorities Worldwide. And he is also the Scholar in Residence at the Islamic Community Center of Bolik in Washington D.C. in the States. And, you know, he, as he mentions, he teaches and lectures and writes about Sunni Islam and its expression and practice in the modern world. And it's on that very point, really, that today's podcast focuses. I think, uh, you've just published, uh, this new book.
There we go. Which I've, uh, just finished. Gate to Medina: Regaining the Art of Islam. Now, this is absolutely a fascinating text, I must say, full of interesting insights and and some quite critical observations about various iterations of, uh, Islamic thought today. But before we get into that, in the early chapters of the book, you speak of a great gap, uh, that has emerged between Islam, Sunni Islam on the one hand, and the modern world, modernity on the other. Could you just explain a little bit about the history of this gap and how you would understand it?
Sure. Alhamdulillah. So the way I looked at it is, uh, kind of, I remember a statement from one of my previous professors, Said Hussein Nasr, at the university. He would always say, he would always make a distinction between Islam as a civilization and Islam as a religion. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think I even used that that terminology, um, in in in the early pages. So, Islam as a civilization means that there was a time where people's day-to-day lives, even if they were non-Muslim, by the way, but they lived in a Muslim majority kind of area, that their day, the rhythm of the day, what they wore, what they ate, how they functioned, what they did for a living, all of those things were kind of infused with Islamic values. And there was more of a congruence between Islam as a religion and Islam as a civilization.
And the interesting thing is, if you reflect on that a little bit, you know, we can go as far as to say from the time of the companions all the way till about the beginning of the 1800s, the beginning of the 19th century, there was this continuity. I mean, of course, there were changes, but but not that many changes. There wasn't that much nuances in technology and discoveries and things like that. For the people living in the early 19th century, when they're reading about the early generation, they can kind of connect in a way that we reading about the people of the 19th century really can't connect.
So, this is what I refer to as the gap. Um, and it brings good things and it brings bad things. I mean, it's, you know, you can read what I wrote and and think it's negative. It's it's not all negative, but it's a historical occurrence that we must take into consideration. I think at one point in the book, you dramatically talk about the, uh, the invasion of Napoleon Bonaparte into Egypt, and you're in Cairo at the moment, quite significantly, and that, you know, he brought not just an army, but he brought an army of scholars, orientalists, you know, of all disciplines to kind of map and and kind of categorize, uh, the Muslim world, or the Egyptian Muslim world, uh, according to their understanding. And and and the trauma that introduced into the Muslim world because it didn't just bring scholars and an army, but they brought technologies, they brought the train, the locomotive, and and other technologies which, uh, affected, uh, the Muslim world, uh, quite profoundly. That's when you date it from, is it 1798, I think, isn't it? This is the moment, a defining moment, anyway.
It's always difficult to to date these things, you know, history, real life is just a continuity. But, you know, when you're writing, you've got to start somewhere, and that was a pretty, pretty eventful incident. So I figured that kind of made sense. But, you know, ever since I was a graduate student at Princeton, and I remember actually seeing the original Description de l'Égypte, one of Princeton has one of the original copies. It kind of left in my mind this impact that this is pretty significant that this guy just showed up, you know, unwelcomed and and with an army and invaded Egypt and declared that he became Muslim and he was here to liberate people and and whatnot. Um, so I was very interested in reading in and understanding that. But of all of the things that you mentioned that they brought, one of the things that they brought that I think is even more impactful is they brought their own concept of the East, their own concept of the the Muslim world with them.
And that's where things get a little bit dicey because their concept of the Muslim world was obviously not very correct or well-informed. It has a lot of European biases built into it at the time. And what ends up happening over time is that large parts of the Muslim world, in a way, start recreating what the Europeans, the the vision that the Europeans have of the East. Easterners started adopting that as their way. And then you get this very disjointed kind of period. Now, that's pretty tra, that's pretty traumatic, I think. It's pretty traumatic just thinking about it. It's pretty traumatic. So you lose something of the essence.
Yeah. So we're talking here at the beginning where the bifurcation begins, where the bifurcation between the civilization, which then became occupied by the French, literally through colonization, and then through the British as well, and and today through, uh, economic and political domination from other Western countries. Um, but but Islam, the religion, continued, didn't it? And it was a lovely, uh, passage where you talk about your own studies at Al-Azhar as a, as a younger man, u, entering into this kind of a different realm of being, this kind of classical world of Sunni Islam, and and and how, if I remember rightly, you say, but in the streets outside, in in wider Cairo, in in Egypt, a a different reality was being played out. Could you explain the psychology of that? What was it like being a student, full-time student, Al-Azhar, because you're you're an American, aren't you? You're not, you're you're you're not Egyptian in the sense of you are your parents and so on are, but you're a US guy. So, you're coming to this as an English-speaking guy who speaks Arabic, studying at this great institution, and you notice this incredible sort of bifurcation of realities around you.
Yeah. You know, I mean, I'm Egyptian ethnically, grew up, you know, with that culture, but of course, I grew up in in the United States, as you mentioned. So, a lot of my culture, probably growing up, was romanticized. We used to come for vacation. So, my my idea of Egypt was more like entertainment, fun, family, you know, history, culture, and things like that.
But what's interesting is I really had no direct connection with Al-Azhar. So, when I came, I really didn't know what to expect other than, you know, this is the place in my mind. This was the place. This is what's what where it happens, and this is as authentic as it gets, at least in in my understanding at the time. I wasn't really aware of other centers. And that's what I wanted. I really wanted this authentic experience because you can study Islam in a university, a modern university in the West and the East and and whatnot, but I wanted something that was a little bit more on the authentic side. But what I found is that when I stepped physically, when I stepped into the institution, I mean, you're really stepping back in time. And it was just, it's very, very hard to put into words. But the the the the most kind of similar experience I I can liken to is, you know, when Harry Potter steps into Diagon Alley, you know, it's just like another world. It's like it's like going to Hogwarts. It's there, but it's really not there for everyone to see. And that's how I felt. I just felt like it's this hidden space, but it's not really hidden. It's there. The way we talk, the way we dress, the way we discussed things, the way we commented on the world around us, the way we understood history, it was all very unique to the Azhar experience. But then when you step out, you know, there's this rapid, you know, pace of life. And that's another thing that I think that we often times forget is that religion moves at a much slower pace than other parts of our dominant culture, on purpose. Religion is not meant to be with each fad because it's something that holds first principles. It's correct, connected to divine revelation. So by definition, it's going to move slowly. So it's not that religion can't keep up. Religion doesn't have to keep up because religion is what retains our identity and our first principles. But, you know, the modern Egyptian society was just changing so fast. This was before the kind of uprising, the rebellion, the upra, whatever it's called. And, um, you know, there's a lot happening in the Middle East. There was a lot happening with the economy of Egypt at the time, and it was so weird, you know, to be in this pristine academic environment for so many hours of the day, but then go back and then have to kind of like plug into like normal Egyptian life and kind of be with the family and talk about, you know, the the happenings and going. So there was this, there was this dichotomy always in my mind as for the duration of when I was a student. There's a lovely, uh, bit where you talk about, is it the the the gliding moment where the the professor would come in from a door, a side door, never quite sure which one, suddenly appear and apparently wafted or glided across the room.
The mi, the mufti glide. I called it the mufti glide. And then took up his chair and started talking. What's the what's the mufti glide? Well, you know, his his robe was was just long enough that you, with no buttons, so you couldn't see when he was like his bending knees as he walked. It was just like flung open. So when he walked, it looked like he was just like kind of gliding like that, and it was just so surreal because I was on the opposite side. I would just see him every day. This is amazing. Just kind of like glides in and then so that kind of added to the mystique, you know, added to the the mystery, the Harry Potter feel, you know, a kind of slightly supernatural feel about this human being gliding across the surface.
Yeah. And there were other type of things like that. I mean, there were other things that I witnessed at Al-Azhar that kind of added to that. It wasn't just academic study. There was something else, you know, some kind of spiritual connection, mystical connection that was happening, uh, in a very real, authentic way, because a lot of the people that were there, most of the people that I interacted with, that this was their life. Their life was just dedicated to preserving these traditions and teaching them and so on and so forth. So, it was a very powerful experience. And it was also very interesting to see it juxtaposed with, because I'd have to go back to the States to do this or to do that. You know, I had kids and, you know, I'm raising a modern family and, and, you know, how do you do that vis-à-vis kind of this experience? Is there a way to connect it? Is it not compatible? So all of these things I struggled with for many years. So, what was it a sense of just handing on, studying a tradition, studying ancient texts and manuscripts and commentaries and fatwas and so on? Was it any sense of engaging with modernity? Say, uh, you know, did they teach about the Islamic, uh, response to Darwin's Origin of Species, for example? Or did they deal with contemporary liberal theory? John Locke, Rousseau, and J.S. Mill, you know, something very influential in the United States and in Britain as well. I mean, was it engagement with contemporary Western thought at all?
Actually, yes, there was a lot of that. A lot of engagement because, you know, the Arabs say, by opposites, things are known. So, oftentimes, to articulate a a concept that is from our tradition but might seem foreign today because we are not used to our tradition, hence the gap, it's oftentimes helpful to compare and to contrast with things that we have today. So, Egypt being a quote unquote republic, being a quote unquote democracy, having a constitution, I mean, these type of things were are supposed to be known and therefore are easy points of, uh, comparison. So, a lot of that happened, but maybe not a very deep, sophisticated, like, let us look at John Locke's theories, you know, point by point, but just in general terms.
And I found that the the ulema that I interacted with were were quite worldly in that sense. They they had a a pretty good grasp about a lot of the, you know, latest ideas, you know, philosophical ideas that come from the West or from Europe more specifically, uh, and they weren't ignorant of it. So that, that was something that I also found. And that's kind of what helped someone like me because I felt, okay, I can connect with these people because they understand my background.
Right. Right. That's interesting. Now, you, you, um, you talk about some, uh, responses, uh, to this, what you call the trauma of modernity. Um, you go through kind of four of them. Um, and these are quite controversial kind of statements for some people, anyway. Do you want to just briefly summarize? Well, I think the first one is modernism, a kind of modernist perspective, and then you mentioned several others. Can we just briefly go through these?
Well, before that, I just want to highlight that, you know, the the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in March of of 1924. I really can't overemphasize how traumatic that was for the Muslim world.
The destruction of the Caliphate. Because when I think of the Ottoman Empire, at least they had a a Caliph with the the Imam who was the kind of political authority, the ultimate man.
Yes. And he, I mean, whether it was it was functioning or not functioning, or whether it was good or not good, there was a category in Islamic law called, you know, the supreme leader, the supreme Imam. And there was a guy that filled it. And that was pretty all the way from the time of the companions to that time. I'm not saying it was all peaches all the time, but there was some, it existed. So, it's imagine if like, all of a sudden, we have no mosques anymore. What do we do now? I mean, we always have mosques. It was kind of one of those situations. What are we supposed to do now? There's no Khalifa. I mean, we were independent, but we, you know, we kind of ceremonially pledge allegiance. And what are we supposed to do now? At least in the Sunni world. So, this was a very traumatic, you know, experience. And and Dr. Mona Hassan's book, um, on the Caliphate, I highly recommend that for people. She does an excellent job of tracing a lot of the details, uh, of of that episode. Uh, and and very, very insightful. She was also at Princeton. She was ahead of me at Princeton, but, you know, somebody I've always looked up to and I enjoy her writing and her scholarship.
So, these responses really come after that incident. They're not like responses necessarily to Napoleon or to colonial experience. It was really when the collapse of the of the Caliphate happened in the 1920s, that's like, okay, well, things have changed significantly. So, what are we supposed to do? So, obviously, one normal response is, great, let's move things forward. Let's let's let's catch up with the West. Let's catch up with Europe. So, people like Muhammad Ali Pasha, who came, you know, the Albanian who came to rule over Egypt, he was of that mindset. He was like, we need to modernize Egypt, modernize its army, modernize its economy, modernize its education. And this was in the right after Napoleon. So, this was in the early 1800s.
So, it's not like the the modern, I'm not saying it's bad, all bad. I'm just saying it's a natural response. These people are advanced in technology and economy and this and that in education. We've we've clearly fallen behind, and there's a lot of truth in that. So, therefore, we need to catch up. Part of the the problem with that response, my critique of that response, is that again, that's not that's not how religion. I mean, it's not like a, you know, it's not like your software on your on your computer, you have to update it. It's not, it's not that simple. There are some things that are just immutable that don't change. So, therefore, what the modernists tend to do is just want to readjust certain things that they think are not compatible with another set of principles. So, there's a lot of tension with that, and there are extreme extremes, extremists amongst the modernists as well. Another, another response is almost the exact opposite. No, no, we need to go back. You know, the problem is that we've left our principles. We've left this golden age. So, we're going to look back and we're going to adopt what they did in the past and forget about this modernist stuff. We need to go back, you know, and that's sort of the the Salafi kind of inclination. Again, I'm not saying it's all bad. I mean, of course, in my book, I critique them. And you, you mentioned before recording, harshly. Yeah, I think I think, yeah, I mean, I don't necessarily, what I think doesn't really matter, but I I thought that the critique was was very harsh. But I mean, you, you make an argument, and it's a strong argument. And I think the thing about the the Caliphate today, I was just thinking the other day, I mean, this is normative. So, all schools of thought, as far as I'm aware, including Shia, believe in a normative political authority. Um, obviously, we believe in the the Imam as he's called in in the jargon, but, you know, a Caliph, a leader. And yet, that is perceived very, in a very widespread way in the United States, throughout the West, as extremist, as something to be feared, as something to oppose. And is only ever spoken of in extremely dark terms, associating the concept with say, ISIS or Al-Qaeda. And something, you know, I think that's quite a deliberate attempt to, you know, uh, make it unpalatable and completely illegitimate for Muslims. And,
well, not to be not to be like a conspiracy theorist, but I mean, definitely Muslim nations becoming closer and uniting is is not in many countries' best interest. I mean, obviously, so they're going to they're going to prevent that. And and when people complain about the Middle East, I was like, you have to understand the Middle East is largely dysfunctional by design. It was meant after, you know, World War, it was meant to be this way. This is why,
still, we we plead guilty, by the way, as the British.
Yeah, correct. So, I mean, it's working in the sense that it's not working, you know, that that it was set up that way. But no, the the Caliphate is something that's agreed upon, as you said. Of course, there are different interpretations between the Sunnis and the Shia, but it's a it's a quintessential part. I mean, how could any community not believe in a leader? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. So, it has to be some kind of political leader. And, uh, you know, ISIS hasn't helped because they've usurped a lot of these, a lot of these terms. But anyway, so these are like two of the main responses. And a third response is also, it's not as popular, but it's messianic. It's like, this is the end of the world. And we have a lot of Mahdi movements, uh, a lot of extremists would refer to themselves as the Mahdi. And again, it's a problem of religion. A lot of people, there's messianic, you know, Christian Zionism, we've spoken about that before. It's a messianically kind of infused, uh, parasitic growth on modern Christianity, let's say.
Yeah. According to normal Christianity, it's a heresy. In fact,
it's a heresy. And it's so, and but it's messianic in nature. It's all kind of infused with these messianic. So, messianism or extreme messianic response is also one of these responses. So, in one sense, I can I categorize those three broad, obviously, this is very sloppy. I mean, it's not a very sharp academic category, but you can look at a lot of the responses since the 1920s moving forward, mainly in one of these three categories. And then I advocate for this fourth response, which I call Islam, which is like, okay, it is what it is. What do we do now? Like, how do we revive what I call the art of Islam? How can we can continually have a meaningful, peaceful, uh, you know, growing, uh, nurturing Islam in light of the the modern reality, without selling out our principles of the past, but also acknowledging that we are here right now, not in the past, we are here right now.
Yeah, I just want to just very briefly touch on some really important works that many people might, well, some people might not have heard of. But one is Edward Said's Orientalism, his great magnum opus, Orientalism. A fellow American academic, um, and this is like the bible of the postcolonial theory school, perhaps. There's the sense of, uh, that the West's, uh, perception of, uh, the Muslim world is very much through a particular lens, an Orientalist lens. And so it's not really letting the the the Muslim world speak for itself on its own terms, its own epistemology, very much through a Western secular liberal perspective. And the brilliant book Orientalism, which I know you'll have read, and I do highly recommend. Another is Wael Hallaq's work. Wael Hallaq, another American scholar, gosh, who's still very much active at, um, at Columbia University, New York. And his work on, on epistemology, his work on the impossible state, that's to the Islamic rulership. And this, so he takes, um, the book Orientalism by Edward Said to the next level. And he critiques Edward, Edward Said, but not really understanding his own secular liberal presuppositions when it comes to worldview. And, you know, he talks about, um, kind of Orientalist epistemology. Um, and I just mentioned these two works because they're part of the intellectual critique from an Islamic, well, one of them is from a more Islamic perspective, perhaps, of of modernity, to try and, uh, understand the the kind of influences that we come under that kind of subvert our own understanding as Muslims of the world around us. So, do you see these as key works in developing an intellectual?
Very much. And I, I have to say that in my, my work at Princeton, I, I critique, um, the impossible state. And because I wrote about the codification of Islamic law, and Halak's basic premise is that the modern state kind of neuters Islamic law and usurps all the power for itself. And I have a different reading of the modern nation-state. And I mean, while I'm not going to deny that that's the nature of of a modern republican, you know, system of government, but what ended up happening in the Islamic world is that there was even more need of the so actually the opposite happened. So I critique on that. But yes, I mean, I'm more familiar with Halak than I am with Edward Said. But in my, in my work on codification, I, I take up him and I take up Brinkley Messick and some of the other Orientalists, you know, argument about the the relationship between Islamic law and the modern nation-state. But yes, I think, nonetheless, I mean, Halak is a very important reader, a very important writer and and scholar, and his work should be taken seriously.
Yeah, absolutely. I recommend him. Now, you write quite a bit later in the book about the art of Islam, and I wasn't quite sure what you meant when you first said that, but you developed the idea quite a nuanced and interesting discussion. Um, you say that is the main engine of the art of Islam and things like that. Could you just explain what you mean by the? I thought at first you meant about paintings and pictures, you didn't nothing to do with that at all, of course, you're talking about
not art in Islam, but the art of Islam. Yes. I mean,
exactly, exactly. You, you do stress the in italics, the "of" bit.
You know, we've talked before about Shakespeare and and, uh, you know, my my fondness of of literature and the the theater and of art in general. Music and art is an important part of my life and and and upbringing. So, I'm always interested in this idea of like the artist, you know, like what, what is art? What is an artist? And and I, I thought about that for a long time. And it seemed when I was at Al-Azhar and I and I saw the things that I I briefly described for you in the beginning of our conversation, and I saw like the level of mastery that my teachers had of their subjects, I was like, you know, that's art. I mean, that's this is like a seamless communication of very complex things, solving complex problems. No notes, it's freestyle. I'm like, how do you do that? So, that was one thing that kind of stuck in my mind is that this proficiency and and this almost elegance.
So, then as I thought of the issue of art and the artist, etc., more and more and more in my own kind of development, as I've been trying to write more and and and talk more and preach more and teach, etc., it dawned upon me that the much is the artist. Because as I define art, kind of taking from Tolstoy's definition of art as basically communicating feeling, well, the artist has in the Western sense, or in the in the normal sense of the artist, like a painter or singer or whatever, they've internalized this this material so much that it is a part of themselves. When I talk about this book, I've had since the summer, it's come out, I've had these conversations. I just give the simple example of somebody like Taylor Swift. I mean, it's impossible to think of Taylor Swift not doing what she's doing. I mean, she just is that. She was born to do that. She's been strumming on that guitar since she was a kid. And she just makes music. That's what she does. That it's just a natural thing for him. And that's really what the artist does. And if you read about the literature of what it means to be a muhaqqiq, the muhaqqiq is spoken about in exactly the same way that they have become so proficient with the with the the principles and the tools that it is a part of them. It's an in it's it's a part that cannot be removed from their being. They naturally are that.
I like I like some some of the examples you give in your book. I I really appreciate. Like you mentioned Proust, the the famous French novelist, Marcel Proust, in "In Search of Lost Time." And you, you mentioned at one point how, in his biography, autobiography, Proust would say that he would look at a church for days on end, look at its architecture, its external form, simply so he can somehow write about it with a very close sense of the ex, the architecture of the church. I mean, and yet it might just be a few lines in his in his magnum opus. And then you, you mentioned Samuel Johnson, the great English, uh, writer, how, you know, he wrote a book on on poets or poetry, how he didn't even write drafts, he didn't write prefaces. He, he just basically downloaded. He was a muhaqqiq, downloaded his knowledge straight away through the pen onto the page and produced extraordinary work, even though he thought in advance, why I must do this, and I'll write this. He simply downloaded, offloaded it onto the page. And an extraordinary example there where where the knowledge and the man and the life of the person were completely at one. Um, and so he becomes an embodiment of this kind of Tolstoian, uh, idea of art as expression of the individual. But as about Proust, you're a big Proust fan because you're constantly citing him in your book, aren't you?
I am.
I don't know. I don't know if you're going to count that against me, but I am very much. You, I've never, I, you know, I've never come across a Muslim, let alone a Muslim scholar, who has an appreciation of or even heard of Proust, let alone appreciate Proust. He's a very, very great, one of the greatest writers of the modern world writer. So, why do you like him so much?
So, uh, well, first of all, if you don't mind, I just wanted to read one quote for you, which now I've conveniently lost, but I, I know the page. So, about Samuel Johnson, because I couldn't find the Proust thing very quickly, but of Samuel Johnson, you know, um, his biographer, Boswell, says, "His mind was so full of that kind of information." This is on the bottom of page 87. "His mind was so full of that kind of information, and it was so well arranged in his memory, that in performing what he had undertaken in this way, he had little more to do than put his thoughts upon paper, exhibiting each poet's life." And when he began to write, the subject swelled in such a manner that instead of prefaces to each poet of no more than a few pages, as he had originally intended, he produced an ample, rich, and most entertaining view of them in every respect. And that's very much, uh, what the artist does, or the muhaqqiq, is that it's so much part of them that you just kind of like, press play, ask a question, and it just kind of comes out because it's already there. So, Proust, um,
yes, tell me about your other Proust.
Every American high school kid has to study American history, and every course in American history must study the Civil War. And when you study the Civil War, uh, growing up in the '90s, the way I did, you are going to end up watching parts of Ken Burns' excellent, um, documentary, "The Civil War." And that's something that I rewatch every single year around November, because November is the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, November 16th. And, uh, that documentary made Shelby Foote famous. He was a famous, now famous, Southern novelist and historian. And I grew up hearing Shelby Foote talk about the Civil War. I did not know that Shelby Shelby Foote was a novelist. And as I grew more interested and I read his, he has a three-volume history narrative of the Civil War. It's like about 3,500 pages. I realized that he's also a novelist. So I got all of his novels and I read them as well. And I realized that one of his major influences was Proust. And that's where I, I learned about Marcel Proust, and how it was, it really shaped him. I was like, I guess I gotta read, if I love Shelby Foote, I guess I gotta read Marcel Proust. And I read Marcel Proust, and I just fell in love. I was like, "Oh my God, this is, I've never read anything like this." But let me pause you on this, because really, because I've read Proust. Reading him is not like reading a newspaper. It's not like reading even reading Dickens. What I mean is, you, you can, you can trot along with Dickens and you can read it fairly quick. I mean, it's a very, very interesting writer. Proust though, is, you got to slow down. You've really got to, you can't rush. You've just got to let, let Proust be Proust, who will just take you very organically, slowly, uh, meandering sometimes, in this extraordinary psychological journey, uh, through his basically autobiographical, although formally it's not, it's a fictional journey. Um, but reading him is a, is very anti-modern in the sense that you really have to, because people don't like reading long books. And Proust's magnum opus, "Remembrance of Things Past," as it's often called in English, is a huge, multi-volume work. And it's not only is it multi-volume, you got to slow down to read it and let him percolate through your being. We're trying to find a metaphor here. Um, how, how was that like encountering this extraordinary, um, being, Proust, in his work? I mean, it was overwhelming because, as you said, it's just so rich. I've never really encountered anything like that. So, I mean, I read him, but I really need to reread it if I really want to benefit. Um, and it's the volumes that I got were the original ones that Shelby Foote, so I had to like find it on eBay. It's like the original, I think, 1920s English translation, "Remembrance of Things Past," which is the the translator took from one of the sonnets of Shakespeare.
Yes, yes.
And, um, it wasn't really until the very end of the book where he starts talking about how he found how art was the liberating thing that liberated him, that it kind of like clicked for me. And it was just sometimes I was just almost in tears when I was reading. I mean, I like, this is exactly what Islam is like. This is exactly what I experienced. And that's, I think, where the seeds of this idea of the art of Islam came from, but I didn't know it at the time. I needed to read a little bit longer and more to get to that point. But it was, it was something, you know, out of this world, really. It was literally out of this world. And I, and I really, I want to kind of block off a couple months to reread. I say that every year, but I just don't have the time. But I would love to reread Proust.
Yeah. Yeah. I, I never actually finished the book. I, I just got distracted. There's so many, the problems that living, living now, there's so many distractions. People constantly, oh, you got to watch this video, or have you seen this debate, or what about this article, or this essay? And you, this competes with one's time. And I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but it's becoming more difficult now. Uh, it's a struggle, actually, to focus. I think for many of us. And I've heard, I've heard, um, students say this at universities as well, to focus on the word, the written word, because of these competing claims. And some students don't even read. I'm not, maybe some can't actually read. I don't know, in some subjects. But, um, I mean, this is not really the topic of your book, but just the, the whole, the whole experience of reading in today, in in today's world, in in this year 2025, especially when there is so much competition for our time, and it's not just the videos, it's the, it's the TikToks and the X/Twitter as well, competing for our time and just absorbing us endlessly. Is it becoming more and more like a jihad, like a struggle to actually keep focused on books in this in this sea of endless distractions?
Yes. I mean, every time I have a class now, I ask in the very beginning, how many people read just for fun, anything? And class after class, not one person raises their hand.
Not one person. Where is this in Jordan, or so? Which place?
This is in the United States. I, I know that many of my students in in the East, maybe they read a little bit, but, but it's pretty, pretty dismal. And what's happening is that we are losing, losing the ability to communicate, uh, and to understand. So, by not reading, we're just becoming dumber, basically, as a community, as a as a society. And, uh, things that we, I grew up just thinking were basic, a lot of people don't know that they're basic. And a lot of that is simply because people don't read. And I'm not talking about reading like, you know, Islamic theology. And I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm talking, just read because I enjoy reading. And, um, you know, uh, it's a, it's a big struggle, as you said. It is, it is a, it is a jihad to get people interested in reading and to show them that there is a, a, a joy in this delayed gratification of taking the time to read and then coming to the end, like, wow, that was amazing, and then it becomes a part of you.
Like when you read like Tolkien, we've talked about Tolkien before. I'm like, wow, okay, I get it. That's a part of it. It's never going to go away. When you read Shakespeare, you're like, oh my God, okay, that's now a part of me. It's not going to go away. Same thing with Proust, etc. Or if like you read Ghazali, or you know, the great books of Islam. But if you don't have that, then it's like you're, it's like you're bereft of of of any meaning. I mean, then what, what is a part of you? All of these memes and these short videos that add up to nothing. It's a very sad existence. It's a big problem.
And I mean, with the with the advent of AI, just to completely go off the topic, because you don't mention AI at all in your book, I don't think. Um, um, I, in in my daily walk, because I love walking, and it's a great opportunity to, I've discovered, um, uh, ChatGPT, where you can actually have a conversation, uh, with ChatGPT while I'm. And so I, I go through various topics, and I, I've discovered, perhaps everyone else knows this. So I, I'm not, part of me is testing ChatGPT. But so yesterday, I was talking to him about the Anselm's ontological argument. And then I talked about the modal ontological argument, you know, 20th-century updating of it, possible worlds, and all that. And it was interesting that ChatGPT was very accurate. He really, and very beautifully or succinctly expressed the, uh, the topic. But there was no depth there. And I kept on wanting to, I kept on pushing it, and saying, well, what do you mean by this? And what do you mean by that? And there was a sense of kind of, it kept on talking in almost generalities all the time. And I wanted to drill down, and I pushed, and it, it really wasn't having it very much. And so, um, I found it quite, um, you know, disappointing ultimately, not to be able to, excuse me, to drill down deeper into these subjects with ChatGPT, which boasts itself as being this encyclopedic, uh, resource which can talk about anything. And it can pretty much talk about anything. And of course, it makes mistakes as well. That's another stuff I'm not going to get into. So, it ChatGPT is superficial, unfortunately, although what it does know about is usually accurate, at least in terms of philosophy or theology, I've discovered so far, anyway. But it's disappointing. So we have to go back to books. Books are the only resource to take one deep into these subjects. And and AI,
I will go, I will go further and I would talk about, um, the importance of fiction and literature, uh, because those are the type of things if it's good literature, surpass the generations and time, and and and we draw, we draw an infinite amount of of benefit from them. You know, a book like this, "Gate to Medina," like I'm happy that I wrote it, and I'm happy to talk about. But, you know, I'm not, I, you know, I'm not going to say that this is like going to stay around for 600 years. I don't know. But, but we'll still be reading Shakespeare. You know, we, we'll still be, you know, Proust will still be an important writer. We still want to know what Charles Dickens had to say, or Faulkner, etc. So, I think that also a lot of Muslims need to to up a little bit on the reading of literature, especially English-speaking Muslims.
Yes. Yeah. I, I agree. And, um, the, this, this, uh, decline in in reading is is very, very concerning. And I, I find now having to not self-censor, but to restrain what in some some conversations I had in the real world with people, because, you know, I don't want to, like, it's not showing off. I, I don't want to take the conversation areas where perhaps they're not going to, uh, be familiar with it, because they've not done any reading about it. And so, it, one's constantly is kind of holding back about that. But then you're always going to like the common, the lowest common denominator. And that's also a problem because then you're not able to lift people. And that's actually where, um, how religions become secular is when we, when we no longer have a shared body of of understanding about the religion itself, then you have to go even lower and lower and lower. And then you have to start like arguing things that were taken, you know, argued a thousand years ago. So, it's a, it's a big threat to us. It's a big threat. And, and I, and I worry about about the lack of reading, which which begs the question, why do you write then?
Well, no, people are reading. It's just, uh, it's a diminishing pleasure. I was shocked that you said none of your students put their hand up when you ask them about their current.
Well, I don't think they're going to answer like that the next time I ask a question, but when I first start a class, I usually ask that just to gauge where people are, right? And I'm like, if you're not even going to read, if you haven't read anything, then I mean, what are you doing in this class? I mean, you have to, you know, this is supposed to be classic law or something. I mean,
how do they even get into the class? I mean, how?
Yeah, I know. Why are you in the class? I mean, I don't understand that.
That's very funny. Um, now I'm going to be a bit naughty now and, um, I'm going to apologize in advance, because this, you do say one or two things. I'm just going to point out one thing where I think there's a, as a, a legitimate learning point here, um, where, in my humble opinion, you, you didn't quite get it right, uh, in terms of factual history.
Before you before you do that, just let me know the page. So I'm on this,
page 16. Exactly. Page 16 of your,
beautifully written book. Um, you're talking about the the differences between, I don't know, the Western Christian world and and Islam. And, um, and difference number, well, the difference number one is is one of sacred language. Um, so, number two, uh, is worldly power. We're not going to go into that so much. I have time, but it's difference number three, united theology. And you say, "The early Christians struggled to unite their theology," which is very true. For the first several centuries of Christianity, there were rival churches that held different theological beliefs, and in some cases, even different books of the gospel. Major efforts such as the Councils of Nicaea in 325 were notable attempts to bring this disparity into a cohesive, sound, and agreed-upon doctrine." Now, this is all, this is fine, but there, I I sense that you were saying, um, that at the Council of Nicaea, um, these different books of the gospels, I Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, a different canon of scripture, um, was was addressed at the Council of Nicaea, and the attempt was made there to bring order and agreement to these disparities. And and that alludes to a common, um, misunderstanding, and, um, particularly bizarrely, Muslim scholars had this, um, and I don't know why it's just, um, the Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with gospels or Bible or anything.
like that. It was only to do the main point of Constantine calling this council was to settle a dispute, uh, that was dividing the church and thus his empire.
Constantine being, uh, the Roman emperor, of course, um, and he wanted unity. He wanted peace in his realm. Pax Romana. And so he called together a bunch of bishops and at Nicaea, which is in modern Turkey, to settle the issue of Jesus. Who was Jesus? Was he God? Was he a creature and so on? And Athanasius and Arius, the two eponymous founders of Arianism and so on. And it was decided ultimately by the council that Jesus was God, the same substance as the Father.
At no point in the deliberation of the council was the Bible ever discussed in terms of the canon or the Gospels. And but this is a myth that has been circulating for some time. Even very eminent scholars, uh, not yourself and other people have said this, and it's simply not true. Nothing to do with it. And so reading in that area in terms of the history would disclose what was actually going on at the council, which was a very technical discussion about Christology, really, and metaphysics, rather than the Bible at all.
"So, in the back of my mind, writing this, I reread the passage because you, you had sent me a note about this."
"Yeah, in re- It could have been written more clearly, but in, in my mind, I was referring to exactly what you just said, the, the theological debates about the nature of Christ."
"Which are discussed, I think the best discussion of them is like volume four or five of Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I mean, he's the best, I think, at least non-theo- theologian that talks about them."
"And there are, there were other Gospels. There are the apocrypha, the apocryphal Gospels."
"Which is a tremendous problem for Christians because we do not have anything like that whatsoever. You know, we, we have the Quran is the Quran. We have weak traditions, but they're not like considered, maybe, maybe not."
"So I think putting those two things in one sentence made it seem like I was arguing that that's what happened at the council. I was referring to the theological, but I, when I reread the two, three sentences, I was like, you're right, I, I led you to believe that and therefore I didn't do a good job in communication."
"No, that's okay. I'm, I'm, I'm very reassured."
"Thank you for pointing it out and allowing us and allowing us to discuss it."
"Yeah, no, that's good. Thank you for your clarification. That clearly wasn't your intention to, uh, resurrect that, uh, that myth. So, no, that, that is the case. And, and you're right, in the, in the early church, there were many different groups. So the, the, the Gnostics and the Ebionites and the Maronites and the proto-orthodox and so on, all with their own scriptures and competing Christologies and metaphysics. And there wasn't a thing called Christianity, as in this essentialist sense, from the beginning. But in Islam, there was a clear, uh, text, the Quran, of course, and the Sunnah, the Prophet himself, um, through which to interpret the Quran and to guide, um, which was very clear. And disagreement centered around, uh, issues of rulership, I guess, in terms of, you know."
"Well, I, I realize that what I'm saying will be debated by Muslims themselves, but all I, and I'm, as I told you, I'm happy to be proven wrong. I mean, this is, I don't have a monopoly on on on knowledge, but I would ask that people just pause before they critique me to understand the significance of what I'm saying. And fundamentally, on the top, the top theological issues, there is no difference between the Sunnis and the Shia."
"I mean, like the Quran, like we face Mecca, like the last prophet is Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, etc. There's a whole host of differences. Yes, I agree that there are a whole host of differences, and some of them are theological, but they're not top-tier theological differences. That was, that's my argument. And I think that because of that, we have a different trajectory in history than, than in the Christian West. That's what I was trying to, or that's what I still believe that that's the case. Maybe I didn't do the best job in articulating that, but I still believe that this is a significant difference between the West and the East on this issue."
"Yeah. And and the, the last chapter, uh, or Ponnima chapter is Tasawwuf. And, uh, there's a beautiful, uh, quote here, um, from the, uh, Quran, actually, um, he says, trying to find it. Um, I think it's Surah, oh, here we go. Uh, on page 97, you say, 'The task to improve the self, what the Quran refers to, uh, as Tadhkiyat al-nafs, or purification of the self, is a universal injunction on every person.' And then you quote the Quran in English: 'He is indeed successful who has caused it to grow, and he is indeed a failure who stunts it.' (Quran 91:9-10)."
"And there's a beautiful, it's a single, you mentioned a couple of other, um, verses as well. But that particular verse has always struck me as the, the seed from which this whole, um, discipline or this whole science of Tasawwuf, um, has developed through time. Um, would that be right? That from that kind of germ seed that he developed?"
"I mean, it's quite, it's quite significant because it's one of the three, they argue, it's one of the three universal injunctions. Uh, God created us a certain way, and we have this thing called the self, the nafs. It can be really good. It can be, usually it's not very good. It's, it's our, we're our own worst enemy. And then God tells us, if you, if you work on that and you, you polish that and you improve it, you're going to do good. If you don't, you're going to be bad. I mean, it's pretty simple. And that the task before us, therefore, is just to constantly work on that. And I think that, um, part of how to regain that gate, you know, to go to to Medina the right way, the concept of the name of the book is that we all have to take that a lot more seriously. Now, I'm not advocating for any specific Sufi, uh, way or manifestation, even though I have my own order and I have my own way, you know, and that's a part of my life and, you know, I have wirds and things like that. But I'm just talking about like with Sufism with a capital S, like as, as like the universal injunction in the Quran, because I think a lot of times, at least in the Sunni space, I don't see that we talk about that enough. I don't see that we're emphasizing that enough, and we need to be doing a lot much more deep work on ourselves and then as, as a, as a community."
"Yeah. And then on the, the preceding page, 96, you say, 'For the spiritual path of Islam is predicated on the firm belief that each one of us consists of body, soul, self. The physical body is activated or turned on, as it were, by the insertion of the soul, an act that takes place in the womb.' And then in a footnote, you talk about most jurists, um, agree the soul is placed in the body after four months, based on a hadith, um, noted by Bukhari. Um, and this, I slight digression, really, is something I've been thinking about recently about what we are as human beings. And I, I heard one person say they weren't a Muslim, but 'we are we are souls that have bodies.' And, and what she meant by that was, uh, after her reflection on numerous accounts now of near-death experiences where people have out-of-body experiences. They observe themselves in the corner of the room. You know, these people are dead or, you know, completely, uh, incapacitated and observe, uh, what is going on around them to their body. So they can hear and see. And when they are resuscitated, accurately report exactly what what they saw and heard going on when physically it would be impossible for them to do so. And the, and these accounts are verified by independently by healthcare experts, by neurologists or doctors or nurses, whatever. And, and there's legions of evidence about this now. It's no longer, you know, it's in peer-review journals. It's out there. And, and she was reflecting on what it was to be human, that we are, in in terms of our ontology, that we appear to be souls that inhabit bodies, but when the bodies die or are completely incapacitated, our souls do continue. And they may not be in our bodies anymore. And I, I thought how beautifully that dovetails with, um, the Islamic understanding of, uh, of each one of us consisting of body, soul, and self, and that the physical body, as you say, activated or turned on, as it were, by the insertion of the soul, and that takes place in the womb. And I thought that coalesced or converged very beautifully."
"Yeah. I would argue that this is very basic Islamic teachings. Uh, maybe sometimes it's not spelled out in that kind of, uh, simple way, but if you follow the nomenclature in the Quran and then the, in the hadith literature, you'll see that there are these three distinct things. And the self, because the verse that you quoted earlier, the, the pronoun is referring to the nafs. So the nafs is different than the soul. And, and what you said, that that lady said, 'we are souls with bodies,' that that also is another one of our teachings is that we were, when we were created before our worldly, our earthly creation, in a time before time, in a place before place, when we all testified to the oneness of God. So that's also Quranic teaching."
"So, and going back to P, that's what I say, that's our deepest memory. So proves salvation or through art is that art goes into the subconscious and removes from it something that it had had in the past. So that object, that art, that piece of art is what brings back that, that piece of that involuntary memory that Proust talks about. Well, if you use that nomenclature, that's what is for us. The remembrance of God's beautiful names is to deep, to reach deep into our being and to pull out that memory that we witnessed the oneness of God. True."
"But, but just to reflect further on on this insight that we are souls that inhabit bodies, which I think is very plausible in terms of the implications of that for Darwinian evolution. Uh, now, I, in my view, there's no problem with Darwinian evolution when it comes to animals, animal life in in the world, although one can have a different view, perhaps. But when it comes to human beings, we are, the Quran is very clear that we are the special creation of God. We're not, we have not evolved from a lower life form at all. That seems to be a non-negotiable in the Quran, as far as I can see. Um, but the point about us being souls that inhabit bodies really goes completely against Darwin's understanding of the origin of of human beings, the descent of man. Was it ascent of man? Descent, descent of man, um, in in that work. Um, and, um, in a sense, radically calls into question a lot of modern science. Now, I don't have a problem with that, because modern science, at the end of the day, is after all the views of men and women who are trying to understand the world according to certain perspectives, and they could be wrong about things, as indeed they have been in the past. But it is a, it is a radical doctrine. If if we took that with full seriousness as an epistemology, as as a way of understanding human beings, this really calls into question some fundamental planks of modern knowledge. And I'm okay with that. I think that's great. But it's not just an isolated Islamic view. It, it really has real-world implications in terms of how we understand ourselves as, as, as people, does it not scientifically? I mean."
"Yeah. I'm not really big on the whole Darwin thing. I know a lot of Muslims are. I mean, I just, it's just not true. I mean, I don't, I don't, I don't really have anything else to say, but I don't, it's not a big deal for me. It doesn't keep me up at night. For some people, it is."
"Oh, it does."
"But I'll tell you one thing that just kind of to throw a curveball into your onto your curveball is that one of the, one of the two generations ago, he said, you know, if you look at all of these, uh, species that people find that that the people that claim that they are like our ancestors and, you know, like proves like there's the evolution, Darwinian evolution, etc. They say all of those, we would categorize as species of jinn, because we believe the jinn inhabited Earth before we did."
"There are traditions about that. We believe that the jinn have free will. Some of them say that humans and jinn can procreate with each other. I guess, I mean, I'm not an expert. I've never seen a jinn. I don't want to see a jinn. I don't plan on seeing a jinn. So, I mean, there are like a million and one explanations. I'm like, whatever. It's not a big deal. Is what were invisible? That's the whole point that we can't see them. Well, we can't typically see them, but they're made of a fire substance. We're made of an earth substance. So, they're a substance that can be seen. People have seen the angels. It's been reported before. So, I mean, I don't know. I'm just, I'm not saying I advocate that interpretation. I'm just saying if you believe in that interpretation, as simplistic as it is, it would just kind of solve all of the problems. We could be like, 'Okay, fine. Then these are just another species.' We have no problem saying that they were another species. And what does that have to do with my life today? That's that's all I'm concerned. How do I just get through today and be and be a better version of myself?"
"Yeah, you're okay. Can you, can you hear me?"
"So, I'm saying I'm, I'm just concerned with being the best version of myself today and making tomorrow better than today. I mean, it's pretty simple. I'm not, I'm not really worried if I came from a monkey or I don't believe I came from a monkey. I just."
"That's not what they're saying anyway. This monkeys are exist in the world is is a is a primate that was prior to our current."
"Yeah. Okay. I mean, you know."
"Yeah. But."
"I don't know what Adam looked like. You know, I believe he lived much longer."
"He probably looked like you actually. So."
"But I mean, I'm not concerned about that. I know it's just not my thing. So."
"Yeah."
"No. Okay. No. But nevertheless, I was just kind of making connection. But you want to talk about Mozart or you want to talk about."
"PR I'm into that, but I'm not into the D thing."
"No, you see, this is why I really disagree with you in the book. The one thing I disagree with your book is is is putting Mozart as number one. I'm sorry that that number one spot belongs to Bach, Johann Sebastian."
"Oh, really? Okay. Comes number two, not number one. I'm sorry. I'm not."
"We can, we can, we can disagree on that. I, I accept that. I, I mean, Mozart is just for me, Mozart. But yes, I mean, people are very passionate about that. Told me what, what is it? Is it, is it his Requiem, his operas, his quartets, his piano concertos? What, what work is it?"
"You know, it's, I'm more familiar with the famous operas. You know, I, I used to sing some of the arias from Don Giovanni when I was in college. So, um, you know, I wasn't able to get to a to a tenor level, but I was an okay baritone. And, um, uh, I think it's just like the overall feeling when you when you listen to Mozart. And I think when you."
"When you listen to like, you know, some of the operas or like the overtures like, you know, to Magic Flute or."
"It's just a feeling. I, I, I, I'm not a musical expert. I can't say, oh, based on meter and scale. I don't have the sophistication to do that. I'm just like, when I listen to Mozart, I feel good. And so for me, he's great."
"Yeah. No, he, he is very great. Of course, it's just, um, I, I was just being silly, but, um, I know I."
"But that quote, I, I found it was that one quote from a book about him. I think is also was also indicative about."
"Um, you know, about how you just either you get it or you don't get it with art on the bottom of page 112. Uh, it was a book about Mozart. So I think also in my mind when I was writing, it just seemed."
"Yeah, I'm with you. I'm with you. Yeah."
"The Requiem, the Requiem is pretty, is pretty far out, I gotta say."
"Yeah, I fell in love with that as a teenager, actually. And it was, um, I guess it kind of complemented my moody adolescent attitude."
"I was actually thinking if I could change some of the Latin about Christ being God."
"You know, I've always toyed with that, but I don't know enough Latin to to do that successfully. But yeah, but I mean, I just, I listen to the Requiem from time to time, the whole thing."
"Yeah, it's extraordinary. And, um, of course, you do allude, we're not going to get into it, but obviously the issue of in music and Islam is is controversial, and there are different views and so on, but that's a different subject, of course. So, well, so we're not going to get into that now. Um, well, I, I guess, I guess that that might be it. I mean, there's so much more we could talk about forever, really, hours and hours. But this is the, the book, uh, Gates to Medina. It's not very long. It's a fun read. Um, I do recommend it. You might not agree with everything in it, but that's not the point. The point is it's an intellectually stimulating foray into modernity and Islam and the Islamic sciences and Sufism and all sorts of things which are certainly very interesting to to read about. So, I, I do recommend it, uh, for that. Um, do you have any concluding thoughts, sir?"
"Um, I'm glad that this is the first conversation I've had in which there's been pushback. Uh, so I want to just, you know, I want to comment on that because I think a lot of times people are timid. Uh, we must, we must push back. And the only way you get at the truth is when your intention is for the truth. And if the truth is not with what I thought or what I said, or I was deficient in presenting it, and you have a better way, or I made a mistake, it's as simple as that. I got to, that's very, very important for writers and for scholars. I believe that this book is a true, uh, manifestation of of this problem that I've been thinking about. It's very personal for me, which is why I wanted to write it. But I do, I appreciate even more than all of the people that have read the book and, you know, given me thumbs up. I actually appreciate your pushback even more than that because it tells me that you read it also in a way that's true for you, and you're pushing back, and that causes me to think even more. And I just wanted to highlight that for, for al, for you to thank you for that. And also for people that are watching and listening. I mean, this is what I think real scholarship and real, you know, this is, this is our tradition is like this. I mean, great, let's push back and and and find what's wrong and a better way of stating something, or if somebody made a mistake, admit that you made a mistake, and it's fine. Move on. No one's perfect. And I, I wanted just to highlight that that I appreciate that very much because it tells me that you read it with with care and you cared to comment on it. So thank you for that."
"Well, no, it's very, very generous of you to to say that. And in response, I'll say, I've been very privileged over the last several years to interview a lot of scholars, some very eminent scholars. And there's one, uh, that sadly passed away in the last year, um, professor at Yale, actually. I won't mention his name. Um, and I did a series of six or seven, uh, podcasts with him about the New Testament. He's a professor of New Testament. And in his last book, uh, he was a very eminent guy. And in his last book, he said something which, um, uh, in fact, his whole central thesis, I didn't really agree with. And I, I gently pushed back. I thought he was trying to have his cake and eat it, basically. You couldn't, he was trying to say you could be an Orthodox Christian and be a top New Testament scholar and accept all the biblical criticism of the world and still believe all this, really. And this whole book was that. So I, I gently pushed back on this. And that was the only time I ever pushed back with him. And I could see him bristle, and I could see him not be happy with this. And I didn't comment any further. I thought, well, that itself is a very interesting thing you've done there, sir. I didn't say this, but I thought this, because people can see you're defensive about it. And I thought his argument wasn't very good at all, even though he was a Yale professor, you know, with an amazing IQ and everything else. I thought it was a very poor argument. And I just pushed it gently, um, even more gently than I had with you. And he, you could see he didn't like it. And the reason I mention him, um, who I, I liked him a lot, he was a very nice guy, but he, anyway, is to compare his reaction to yours, and where you were much more obviously much more gracious and and so on. And he wasn't a Muslim, anyway. But, um, so I, I'm very grateful that you took my little pushbacks with such good grace, because not everyone does that. So it's to your credit that you say what you've just said. So."
"I mean, if you make a mistake, what then? Pushing back is just a fool or being arrogant. I mean, if I made a mistake, I made a mistake. Uh, if I didn't phrase something right, then, you know, I didn't phrase it right, etc., etc. But I think the goal of of writing is to get people to talk about this and to discuss it to arrive at some sharper understanding. So I see the book as a tool, not as like the final, you know, this is my experience and and the way I think about it. What do you think? What do you think about these issues? Do you think there's an issue at all? So on and so forth. So yeah, I mean, I appreciate it. And as I said to you privately, you know, life would be so dull if we didn't if we didn't push back."
"No. And, and it's been a great indulgence to talk to an Islamic scholar who's actually enjoyed Shakespeare and and Mozart and P and Tolkien and and all the others you mentioned. That's a rare, a rare treat. I think Shabir, yeah. Dr. Shabir Akhtar, another late scholar from Oxford University. He was someone who could do that as well. I mean, he who was fluent in the Western tradition academically, uh, intellectually, literature, and so on. Had a PhD in Ghalib, of all things. Um, so this is for me, a rare delight to bring these two traditions, the Western tradition and the Islamic tradition, in conversation and discuss it in the way that you have. So, and I think, um, this is, this is very unusual and extremely valuable, I think. So thank you."
"No, thank you for the opportunity. It was good to talk to you again, and I hope that we get to do this again soon, inshallah."
"Inshallah. Inshallah. Yep. So, thank you very much, uh, Dr. Terawari, from all the way from Cairo, and I'm in London. Inshallah. So, um, thank you very much. Until next time."