Ali al-Sayis, in Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, employs a comparative approach across the four Islamic legal schools—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali—objectively and without sectarian bias. He consistently selects the strongest opinions based on a thorough analysis of textual evidence. This work specifically focuses on Qur’anic verses that serve as the foundation for the establishment of Islamic legal rulings (ahkam) [1]. However, studies that specifically examine Ali al-Sayis’s stance toward the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah (the Seven Canonical Readings) remain rare, leaving a gap in academic research [2]. Although his work emphasizes the interpretation of legal verses through comparative scholarly opinions and linguistic analysis, he has not explicitly discussed the impact of qirā’āt variations on juristic interpretation.

This raises an important question: to what extent did al-Sayis consider the variations in qirā’āt as a basis for legal reasoning (istinbāṭ al-ḥukm), especially given that qirā’āt can significantly influence the meaning of Qur’anic verses?[3] An interesting discourse arises from the potential tension between al-Sayis’s objective methodology and the complexity of qirā’āt authority. On one hand, al-Sayis tends to prioritize interpretations he deems most rational and pays great attention to their relevance in modern human contexts [4], suggesting an openness to qirā’āt that support interpretive flexibility) [5]. On the other hand, juristic studies generally give precedence to mutawātir qirā’āt (those transmitted through mass narration with confirmed authenticity), which are always prioritized over shādhdh (irregular) readings in the process of tarjīḥ (weighing opinions.

This study aims to explore in depth the perspective and methodology of Ali al-Sayis in addressing the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah within Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, particularly how these Qur’anic recitational variants influence interpretation and the formulation of Islamic legal rulings. The research also examines the relevance and contribution of the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah to the construction of Islamic law from al-Sayis’s perspective. To understand the position and contribution of the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah in legal interpretation according to Ali al-Sayis, it is essential to review several previous studies related to this theme.

Several relevant studies include one titled “Penafsiran Muhammad Ali Al-Sayis dan Muhammad Ali Al-Sabuni tentang Ad’iya’dalam Tafsir Ayat Al-Ahkam Qs. Al-Ahzab [33] : 4-5”,[6] which discusses the differing exegetical approaches of al-Sayis and al-Sabuni, particularly in interpreting qisās (retributive justice) verses. Al-Sayis tends to take a descriptive approach without tarjīḥ, while al-Sabuni prefers the opinions of the majority (jumhūr). Another study, “Qiraat pada Ayat-Ayat Ahkām dan Pengaruhnya terhadap Hukum Fikih”[7], focuses on analyzing the variations of qirā’āt in legal verses as one of the main causes of juristic disagreement.

A further study titled “Keragaman Qira'at dan implikasinya terhadap tafsir ayat-ayat Hukum Keluarga serta relevansinya dengan Undang-Undang nomor 1 tahun 1974.”[8] highlights how variations in Qur’anic readings affect the interpretation of family law verses and contribute to differences in istinbāṭ al-ḥukm among scholars. Meanwhile, the study “Pembelaan Ahruf Sab'ah dan Qiro'at Sab'ah Sebagai Disiplin Ilmu Alquran”[9] presents Abu Hayyan’s efforts in defending the authority of the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah. It outlines the historical background of Qur’anic recitational diversity, which corresponds to the various Arabic dialects, as well as the pivotal role of qirā’āt scholars whose readings remain authoritative today.

Unlike these previous studies, the present research specifically focuses on the integration of the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah into al-Sayis’s exegetical methodology of legal verses, analyzing its influence on legal reasoning (istinbāṭ al-ḥukm) and connecting it with the contemporary relevance of Islamic law.

To achieve this objective, the study employs a qualitative–descriptive approach using library research, focusing on an in-depth analysis of Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām by Ali al-Sayis as the primary source for examining his attitudes and methodology toward the Qirāʾāt Sabʿah. Manna’ al-Qattān’s principles of the Qirāʾāt Sabʿah in Mabāḥith fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān serve as the theoretical framework for assessing the validity of the readings [10]. The analysis is conducted by classifying al-Sayis’s approach based on three main criteria: conformity to Arabic linguistic rules, consistency with the Uthmanic script, and the authenticity of the transmission chain (sanad).

The analytical process in this study is carried out through several sequential stages. First, the researcher examines Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām to identify all legal verses discussed by Ali al-Sayis in which he employs variants of qirāʾāt. Second, each qirāʾah variant—whether mutawātir, shādhdhah, or qirāʾah tafsīriyyah—is collected along with its exegetical context. Third, all of the collected data are classified using the three criteria of sound qirāʾāt established by Manna’ al-Qattān: compliance with Arabic grammar, conformity with the Uthmanic script, and the strength of the sanad. Fourth, the researcher analyzes al-Sayis’s stance toward each reading to determine whether he accepts it as an authoritative qirāʾah, uses it as an interpretive aid, or rejects it as a basis for legal rulings.

Fifth, the analysis proceeds by assessing the extent to which these qirāʾāt variations influence the interpretation of legal verses—whether they produce juridical implications or merely enrich the linguistic dimension. Sixth, based on these findings, the researcher maps al-Sayis’s pattern of selecting qirāʾāt to reveal his methodological tendencies in employing them for legal derivation (istinbāṭ al-aḥkām). Finally, this pattern is synthesized and connected to qirāʾāt theory and modern legal-exegetical methodologies to derive implications for the development of contemporary Qur’anic studies.

Ali al-Sayis applies strict linguistic criteria when evaluating qirā’āt. For instance, the qirā’ah “مَلِكِ” (malik, without an alif) in Surah al-Fātiḥah [1]:4 is accepted by him because it fully adheres to the grammatical and morphological rules of the Arabic language, even though it differs from the standard written form “مَالِكِ” (mālik) [14]. He explains that this difference does not violate linguistic principles but rather represents a legitimate grammatical variation within Arabic usage.

Similarly, al-Sayis’s stance toward the qirā’āt in Surah al-Muzzammil [73]:20, particularly regarding the variation in the phrase “أَدْنَى مِنْ ثُلُثَيِ اللَّيْلِ وَنِصْفَهُ وَثُلُثَهُ” (“less than two-thirds of the night[14], and half of it, and a third of it”), demonstrates his careful and profound approach to understanding the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah by giving due attention to linguistic, semantic, and contextual dimensions of revelation.

Al-Sayis explains that the word “أَدْنَى” (adnā) linguistically means “closer” or “less,” and in this verse it is understood as “less than.” He notes that the majority of readers (jumhūr al-qurrā’) recite “وَنِصْفَهُ وَثُلُثَهُ” (wa niṣfahu wa thuluthahu) in the accusative case (naṣb), functioning as adverbial expressions of time that specify the phrase “less than two-thirds of the night.” Hence, the verse means that Allah knows that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions perform night prayer in varying portions—sometimes less than two-thirds of the night, sometimes less than half, and sometimes less than a third[14]. This reading emphasizes flexibility and ease in performing night worship according to individual capacity.

Meanwhile, al-Sayis also discusses the qirā’ah of Nāfi‘, who reads “وَنِصْفِهِ وَثُلُثِهِ” (wa niṣfihi wa thuluthihi) in the genitive case (jar)[15], coordinating these words with “two-thirds of the night[14].” Thus, the meaning becomes that Allah knows the Prophet and his companions pray for varying portions of the night—less than two-thirds, less than half, and less than a third—alternately.

Furthermore, al-Sayis elaborates on the word “تَابَ” (tāba), which in Arabic originally means “to return” or “to turn back.” In this verse, it carries two principal interpretations:

In the qirā’ah of Nāfi‘ and similar readings, where “نِصْفِهِ” and “ثُلُثِهِ” are read in the genitive form, the phrase “فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ” (fa-tāba ‘alaykum) is interpreted as Allah’s forgiveness for the believers’ shortcomings in fulfilling the command of night prayer. In this sense, Allah pardons those who, at times, can only rise for less than a third of the night, even though the initial command required half the night. This indicates Allah’s mercy in accepting human effort, even when it falls short of perfection.

In the majority reading, where “نِصْفَهُ” and “ثُلُثَهُ” are read in the accusative form, the phrase “فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ” signifies Allah’s granting of ease and relief from difficulty. That is, Allah alleviated the initial burden by transforming the earlier, more demanding command into one that is lighter and more manageable [14]. This interpretation underscores that Allah facilitates worship in accordance with human capability.

Ali al-Sayis’s stance toward the qirā’āt in Surah al-Muzzammil [73]:20 is thus scholarly, open-minded, and balanced. He accommodates authentic qirā’āt variations and interprets the verse contextually, emphasizing the divine mercy, forgiveness, and leniency embedded in the Qur’anic command. In doing so, al-Sayis demonstrates how the Qirā’āt Sab‘ah can serve as a rich and dynamic source of understanding in Qur’anic studies, rather than a cause of rigidity or restriction.

Ali al-Sayis emphasizes tolerance within the limits of the ʿUthmānic script. He accepts the qirā’ah of Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ — “وله أخ أو أخت من أم” [16] in Surah al-Nisāʾ [4]:12,  because it remains consistent with the writing conventions of the ʿUthmānic muṣḥaf, even though it includes an element of interpretive elaboration [14]. Similarly, the qirā’ah “وَأَرْجُلِكُمْ” (read with kasrah, genitive case) in Surah al-Mā’idah [5]:6 is explained by al-Sayis as a phenomenon of jar bi-l-mujāwarah (“influence by proximity”), which still falls within the accepted boundaries of rasm tolerance. Al-Sayis clarifies that this verse presents two possible readings concerning the word “أَرْجُلَكُمْ” (“your feet”):

In this reading, “وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ” functions as the direct object (mafʿūl) joined (mawṣūl) with the previous words “وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ” (“your faces and your hands”). Thus, the meaning is a command to wash the face, the hands up to the elbows, and the feet up to the ankles. This reading conforms to the ʿUthmānic rasm and is supported by the continuous practice of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his Companions, who consistently washed their feet up to the ankles during ablution (wuḍūʾ). It also represents the legally established (ijmāʿ) position that washing the feet is an obligatory component of wuḍūʾ.

In this reading, “أَرْجُلِكُمْ” is in the genitive case (majrūr) due to the grammatical rule of jar bi-l-mujāwarah (case assimilation due to proximity), as seen in other verses such as Surah Hūd [11]:26. In this context, the jar reading of “أَرْجُلِكُمْ” is interpreted as a subtle indication of moderation in using water when washing the feet [14], since the feet are the body part most exposed to dirt and thus may lead to wastefulness if washed excessively.

Ali al-Sayis interprets the jar reading as a result of jar bi-l-mujāwarah—a form of inflection that “follows” the case of a neighboring word rather than reflecting its actual syntactic function. Although some scholars mention the possibility of interpreting the jar reading on the basis of jar bi-l-mujāwarah, major exegetes such as al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn ʿAṭiyyah, and al-Zamakhsharī do not treat it as the principal analysis for this verse. Indeed, al-Qurṭubī discusses both readings—naṣb and jar—yet he emphasizes that there is scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ) that the feet must be washed, not merely wiped[17]. Moreover, employing jar bi-l-mujāwarah as a basis for establishing a legal ruling is considered an anomalous (shādh) approach, as the strength of this grammatical principle does not match that of established rules of syntax.

Meanwhile, Ibn Masʿūd’s reading “فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْمَانَهُمَا” is not treated by al-Sayis as a mutawātir qirā’ah nor as an independent legal proof. Nonetheless, he still employs it as a qirā’ah tafsīriyyah that reinforces the view that the hand to be cut is the right hand. Al-Sayis explains that the canonical reading “فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا”—with the plural form aydi as an instance of muqābalah al-jamʿ bi-l-jamʿ—indicates that each thief has only one hand amputated[14]. He then stresses that the hand to be cut is the right hand, based on scholarly consensus, while Ibn Masʿūd’s reading serves to clarify a meaning aligned with that consensus, even though it does not meet the rasm criteria required for establishing legal rulings.

Thus, al-Sayis does not reject this reading outright; rather, he situates it within the domain of exegesis, not legal derivation (istinbāṭ al-aḥkām). This stance demonstrates that non-mutawātir (shādhdhah) qirā’āt may be accepted by him as semantic support, but not as independent juridical evidence—reflecting at the same time his selective approach in positioning qirā’āt outside the mutawātir framework.

Al-Sayis emphasizes the authenticity of transmission. He acknowledges the mutawatir qira’at, such as the recitations of Nafi‘ and Ibn Kathir in QS. Al-Muzzammil:20, because their chains of transmission are continuous up to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) through routes that make collusion impossible. He also analyzes the credibility of the transmitters of Ibn ‘Amir’s qira’ah “ما نَنْسَخْ” in QS. Al-Baqarah:106 by verifying the narrators’ integrity (‘adl) and accuracy (dhabt).

Conversely, Ali al-Sayis’s stance toward the sab‘ah qira’at related to the recitation “إذا قمتم إلى الصلاة وأنتم محدثون” (when you stand for prayer while in a state of impurity), which falls under the category of qira’at shadhdhah (irregular or anomalous recitation), demonstrates a very cautious and contextual approach. In this text[14], Ali al-Sayis argues that such shadhdh recitation cannot be used as a legal basis to obligate ablution (wudhu) before every prayer; rather, it should be understood only as a recommendation (mandub).

Ali al-Sayis refers to several hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that indicate performing ablution while already in a state of purity (taharah) brings reward, such as the hadith: «من توضأ على طهر كتب له عشر حسنات»[18] (“Whoever performs ablution while in a state of purity will be granted ten good deeds”). This hadith shows that performing ablution in a state of purity is a recommended act, not an obligation.

Furthermore, Ali al-Sayis also cites the incident when the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) performed the five daily prayers with one ablution on the day of the Conquest of Makkah. At that time, Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) said to him:

قال له عمر: يا رسول الله صنعت شيئا لم تكن تصنعه، فقال عليه الصلاة والسلام: عمدا صنعته يا عمر.

“O Messenger of Allah, you have done something you do not usually do.” The Prophet replied, “I did it deliberately, O Umar” [19].

This event confirms that performing ablution before prayer is not a repeated obligation but may be done once for several prayers as long as one remains in a state of purity [14]. Thus, Ali al-Sayis uses this argument to reject the shadhdh recitation that implies the obligation of performing ablution before every prayer based on that qira’ah.

Table 1 demonstrates al-Sayis’s methodological attitude toward the qirāʾāt by highlighting his consistent distinction between linguistic validity, exegetical value, and juridical authority. Across the examples presented, al-Sayis shows a clear commitment to accepting variant readings that are linguistically sound, conform to Arabic grammatical principles, and are supported by reliable transmission, while carefully limiting their impact on legal rulings unless supported by mutawātir evidence.

In Qur’an 1:4, al-Sayis’s acceptance of both maliki and māliki illustrates his view that multiple authentic readings may coexist without generating legal divergence. Instead, these variants function to enrich theological meaning, portraying Allah simultaneously as Sovereign and Owner of the Day of Retribution. This approach underscores his preference for semantic complementarity rather than legal differentiation. A similar pattern appears in Qur’an 73:20, where both the accusative and genitive readings are acknowledged as linguistically valid. Al-Sayis interprets the accusative form as indicating flexibility (takhfīf) in the obligation of night prayer, while the genitive reading emphasizes divine forgiveness (maghfirah). Notably, neither reading is employed to establish a rigid legal command, reflecting al-Sayis’s sensitivity to the broader ethical and spiritual dimensions of the text.

With regard to Qur’an 4:12 and Qur’an 5:38, al-Sayis accepts non-mutawātir readings as qirāʾāt tafsīriyyah that may clarify meaning but cannot function as independent legal proofs. These cases reveal his cautious stance toward solitary or explanatory readings, which he values for interpretive support while subordinating them to the dominant legal framework established by consensus and sound prophetic practice. In the case of Qur’an 5:6, al-Sayis clearly prioritizes the accusative reading arjulakum, aligning it with the Uthmanic script and established Sunnah to affirm the obligation of washing the feet in wuḍūʾ. Although he tolerates the genitive reading as grammatically possible, he restricts its legal implication, interpreting it as an indication of water conservation rather than a mandate for wiping the feet. This reflects his principle that legal rulings must rest on the strongest textual and practical evidence. The example of Qur’an 2:106 further reinforces al-Sayis’s balanced methodology. While he accepts Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading due to its reliable transmission, he emphasizes that it does not introduce a new legal ruling but merely strengthens the general concept of abrogation (nasakh). Finally, al-Sayis’s rejection of irregular readings related to wuḍūʾ demonstrates his firm boundary between accepted qirāʾāt and shādhdhah variants. Despite their apparent legal implications, such readings are dismissed when they contradict authentic ḥadīth, resulting in the conclusion that renewing wuḍūʾ before every prayer is recommended rather than obligatory.

Table 1 illustrates that al-Sayis adopts a principled and hierarchical approach to the qirāʾāt: linguistic and exegetical richness is welcomed, but juridical authority is reserved for readings that are mutawātir, textually sound, and corroborated by established Sunnah and scholarly consensus. Overall, Ali al-Sayis’s stance toward the Seven Qirā’āt in this case is selective and critical. He does not accept anomalous (shādhdhah) readings that conflict with the principles of fiqh or authentic hadith. Instead, he situates such readings in their proper context—as recitations that cannot serve as the basis for obligatory legal rulings, but only as readings that imply recommendation or virtue. This approach demonstrates that al-Sayis prioritizes harmony between qirā’āt, linguistic rules, and the authoritative sources of Islamic law, thereby preserving the integrity of the Qur’anic text while safeguarding the purity of the Sharī‘ah.

Nevertheless, al-Sayis does not always utilize variant qirā’āt in his legal explanations. This is evident, for example, when he interprets other legal verses without presenting their qirā’āt variants. Such instances indicate that his use of qirā’āt in legal analysis is not applied universally to every verse, but selectively and only when he deems them contextually relevant.

Al-Sayis’s approach to qirāʾāt demonstrates that he views the variant readings of the Qur’an as an important element of exegesis, though he does not regard them as a primary source of legal rulings. For al-Sayis, qirāʾāt possess epistemological value, yet their function is primarily as linguistic indicators and semantic enhancers (muʾayyid), rather than as independent legal proofs [14]. In other words, he acknowledges the authority of qirāʾāt, but their use in legal derivation (istinbāṭ al-aḥkām) is selective, contextual, and not systematic.

In several legal verses, al-Sayis does employ qirāʾāt differences to grasp semantic variations that help clarify the intent of the Sharīʿah. For instance, in Qur’an 73:20, he explains the distinction between the genitive and accusative readings, which produce two different emphases: takhfīf (alleviation) and maghfirah (forgiveness). Here, qirāʾāt are used to reinforce the exegetical direction, not to formulate new legal rulings. This mirrors the approach of Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās in his work Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān[20]. Such examples show that qirāʾāt may function as supporting considerations in tarjīḥ, but not as the primary determinant.

In other cases, such as Qur’an 5:38, al-Sayis prioritizes the mutawātir reading «فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا» when discussing the ruling on amputation of the hand. However, he still cites the reading of Ibn Masʿūd «فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْمَانَهُمَا» as a qirāʾah tafsīriyyah that reinforces the conclusion that the right hand is to be amputated. This indicates that he does not reject shādhdhah readings outright; rather, he employs them in an explanatory capacity, not as legal foundations [21]. A similar practice is found among other exegetes, such as al-Qurṭubī, who holds that not every legal verse must be accompanied by an exposition of all its qirāʾāt variant.

Despite recognizing the importance of qirāʾāt, al-Sayis does not consistently examine all variant readings for every legal verse. Some verses that actually contain significant qirāʾāt differences—such as the word yaṭhurna in Qur’an 2:222, where Shubah, Ḥamzah, al-Kisāʾī, and Khalaf read «يَطَّهَّرْنَ» with tashdīd (from taṭahhara, meaning to bathe after attaining purity), while other qurrāʾ read «يَطْهُرْنَ» without tashdīd (from ṭahura, meaning to cease menstruation [22]. are not discussed in his tafsīr. This pattern indicates that he does not treat qirāʾāt as a fixed method in legal derivation, but rather as an auxiliary tool when the variation adds interpretive value.

Although al-Sayis accepts certain shādhdhah readings as aids to meaning, he does not provide a clear methodological boundary for when such readings may be used in exegesis and when they should be disregarded. This ambiguity appears in his discussion of the amputation ruling, where he upholds consensus (ijmāʿ) as the primary basis without examining the historical relationship between the formation of this ijmāʿ and the existence of alternative readings such as Ibn Masʿūd’s «أَيْمَانَهُمَا», which also refers to the right hand but is not among the mutawātir readings and thus not used as legal evidence by later scholars [14]. Methodologically, it remains relevant to ask whether the ijmāʿ emerged after the reading of Ibn Masʿūd had ceased to be used—thereby making its exclusion understandable—or whether it emerged while the reading was still known[24] , in which case it may have contributed to reinforcing the scholars’ consensus [25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30]. Since al-Sayis does not address this chronological aspect, his application of shādhdhah readings appears selective and lacking a fully consistent framework.

Ali al-Sayis clearly aligns with the mainstream of 20th-century al-Azhar scholarship, particularly in his objective comparative approach to legal schools and his moderate stance toward qirāʾāt. He accepts mutawātir readings as authoritative in interpretation and employs shādhdhah readings in a limited way as semantic enhancers, reflecting the tendencies of modern Egyptian reformist thought [2],[31],[32],[33],[35]. As noted by A. Fadhil, al-Sayis also writes in a contemporary scholarly style.

From the standpoint of qirāʾāt theory, his position most closely aligns with Ibn al-Jazarī, as both emphasize the three conditions for a valid reading (conformity with Arabic grammar, the Uthmanic script, and a sound sanad) [23],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40]. In exegetical practice, however, his approach resembles that of al-Zarqānī, who treats qirāʾāt primarily as linguistic instruments rather than independent legal sources [41],[42],[43],[45]. His similarity to Abū Shāmah is more partial, limited mainly to cautious acceptance of readings, though al-Sayis tends to be more flexible. Thus, it can be concluded that al-Sayis follows the general methodological pattern of modern Azhari scholarship while still exhibiting an independent character in his utilization of qirāʾāt.

This study demonstrates that Ali al-Sayis’s attitude toward the qirā’āt is selective, critical, and well-measured. He consistently adheres to the three foundational conditions—linguistic eloquence (faṣāḥah), conformity with the ʿUthmānic script (rasm ʿUthmānī), and the validity of the transmission (sanad)—and positions the qirā’āt as linguistic instruments for interpreting legal verses rather than as independent juridical proofs. Through his analysis of the variant readings in Sūrat al-Fātiḥah, al-Muzzammil, and al-Mā’idah, it becomes clear that al-Sayis accepts sound readings as a means of enriching meaning, while rejecting anomalous (shādhdhah) readings as legal evidence when they conflict with hadith or scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ). Accordingly, this research contributes significantly to clarifying how qirā’āt can be handled methodologically without blurring the boundaries between their textual authority and the requirements of legal derivation.

Al-Sayis’s methodological posture carries direct implications for contemporary qirā’āt studies as well as for the renewal of Islamic jurisprudence. For modern qirā’āt scholarship, this study reaffirms the importance of distinguishing between mutawātir qirā’āt as textual foundations and shādhdhah qirā’āt as tools of semantic clarification. For the reconstruction of modern fiqh, al-Sayis’s approach offers an integrative model that combines linguistic inquiry, comparative madhhab analysis, and contextual sensitivity. Through such an approach, the qirā’āt can function as a supporting element in developing Islamic law that is more adaptive, moderate, and aligned with the principles of ease in the Sharīʿah—while still upholding authoritative standards within Qur’anic sciences.

M. Fahmi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. Ahmad Mahfud: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. Moh. Fuad Salim: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Investigation.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to UIN Sunan Ampel (UINSA) Surabaya and Imam Malik College of Sharia and Law, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for their academic support and encouragement throughout the preparation of this paper. We also extend our appreciation to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of this work.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

This research did not receive any financial support.