Dr. Muhammad Ibn Farid Zeriyuh
In the Name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate
In terms of rejecting the Prophetic Sunnah, deniers range in severity according to the deviant rationalistic arguments implanted in their hearts and souls. Rationalistic arguments are frequently used as the basis for any deviation from the Sunnah.
As a result, deniers of the Sunnah’s attitudes towards the Islamic texts, since the beginning of the Schools of Kalām-theology and philosophy and ending with their contemporary rationalistic branches, rely mainly on giving precedence to reason over narration. This is actually their main criterion in how they view the Prophetic reports, not to mention that it is the basic doubt regarding what they consider to be the incoherence between evidences.
The stronger this criterion is in people’s souls, the weaker their acceptance of the texts of revelation is. As a result, this criterion became the dividing line between the People of Sunnah and the innovators. On that, al-Samʿānī (d. 489 AH) said: "They (i.e. the innovators) established their religion on rationalistic arguments and thus made the following of the Sunnah and the transmitted Hadiths come second in rank to reason."Al-Aṣbahānī, Al-Ḥujjah Fī Bayān Al-Maḥajjah Li Qawām Al-Sunnah, 1/34. (1)
For those deniers, rationalistic evidence is the only means to prove the authenticity of the report. As a result, giving precedence to al-Naql (i.e. narration) means undermining this criterion, not to mention that they firmly believe that the rationalistic arguments, unlike Al-Naql that is dhannī (i.e. indecisive), are decisive in terms of authenticity and denotation. Granted, the decisive evidence always takes precedence over the indecisive evidence.In light of this principle, Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī based his Qānūn Al-Kullī (i.e. Total Law) in which he gave precedence to the reason-based evidence when there is conflict between such evidence and the apparent meaning of the Sharia. In this way, he rejected some texts under the pretext that their objectives are not intended by the Lawgiver or through criticizing their chain of transmission. Asās Al-Taqdīs, p. 130 (2)
This is the main argument employed by those deniers, from the Muʿtazillites to the secularists, in their pursuit of rejecting the authentic reports. They claim that if narration would be given precedence over reason, when the evidences are incoherent, it would defame reason. This claim is totally against the well-established Sharia evidences and it is an illusion that results from the so-called conflict between reason and narration. However, we maintain that there is no conflict between them at all.
Here is the explanation: the authentic narration could not be in conflict with the instinctive reason according to the religion’s scholars, especially when the denotation grasped from the narration goes against the law of non-contradiction. Conflict occurs between an unauthentic narration and clear reason, or between deviant reason and an authentic narration. How many times do the pretenders of reason fall into the traps of this so-called conflict?
In this context, there is a group of people who claim, "We fully know that this matter is correct by virtue of necessity," while another says, "We fully realize that the contrary is correct by virtue of reason or necessity." So, whoever is able to reconcile these arguments will eventually come to the conclusion that the proofs are on an equal footing, which either confuses him or leads him to take no action or to claim conflict.Ibn Taimiyah, Al-Ṣafadiyah, 1/294 – 295. (3)
Unsurprisingly, pretenders of reason will thus disagree among themselves over the essence of their criterion (i.e. the rationalistic arguments), because each of these groups employs this criterion in a different way: they accept the Prophetic reports that exclusively agree with their own understanding and reject those reports that go against it.
Rationalistic evidence is not a mathematically precise criterion, a point that is evidenced by the fact that people do not take it for granted. Besides, there is a possibility that an error might occur in the premises during the thinking process, which logically means that the conclusions won’t be correct. The main error will thus stem from the premises that are considered the main premise to the conclusions, not to mention the fact that the senses are frequently affected by illusions, a matter that leads the intellect to form a wrong image that is totally away from reality.
In addition, people are not exclusively affected by the strict scholarly rationale since intellects of men does not work in this automatic way. Rather, experiences, emotions, desires, or environments influence most of intellects of men. Besides, the intellect itself may experience negligence and surprise, let alone the fact that there are many pressures, variables and other factors affecting the way of thinking. This is an undeniable fact, regardless of whether people perceive it as such or not. In this way, humans frequently changes their judgments on many issues, after thinking for a long time. Fayrūz Ibn Ḥuṣayn said: "When Allah the Exalted wants to deprive a person from a blessing, He the Almighty first changes this man’s intellect."Al-Jāḥiẓ, Al-Bayān Wa Al-Tabyīn, 2/199; this statement is attributed to Fayrūz ibn Ḥuṣayn. (4)
At that point, rejection of the Prophetic Hadiths in line with people’s different rationalistic arguments “leads to utter chaos and only Allah knows where it might end. Besides, it will shake the foundations of the Sunnah in people’s hearts: someone negates a certain Hadith, while another declares it authentic! A third has not yet voiced an opinion on it! This is all the result of the fact that their reasons’ levels of understanding and cultures are different from each other, so how is this conceivable?”Muṣṭafa Al-Sibāʿī, Al-Sunnah Wa Makānataha Fī Al-Tashrīʿ Al-Islāmī, p. 279. (5)
It is thus clear that reliance on this approach or broadening its scope is not only a grave error but also a deviation from the right path followed by our great scholars.
Reality indicates that Ahl ul-Hadīth’s (traditionist scholars) agreement on the authenticity of a well-established report is not revoked by any of them, a point that is evidenced by the fact that no dispute among them over this report has been recounted to us. As such, the authenticity of the report resulting from their agreement is stronger than what people view as "reason-based certainty." This means that Muslims are obligated to follow the judgments of those scholars specialized in distinguishing authentic Hadiths from weak Hadiths. Taking into account that their judgments should be given precedence over those who are not well-versed in this noble branch of knowledge.ʿĪsā Al-Naʿmī, Dafaʿ Daʿwā Al-Muʿārid Al-ʿAqlī ʿAn Aḥādīth Al-ʿItiqād, p. 279. (6)
With that in mind, it is crystal clear that both the reason-based evidence and the narration-based evidence may be either decisive or indecisive. As a result, one should not limit decisiveness to reason-based evidence, nor should one limit indecisiveness to narration-based evidence. In truth, the two kinds of evidence may be decisive or indecisive; or one of them may be decisive while the other is indecisive, or vice versa.
In the event that the two pieces of evidence are decisive, it is impossible that there will be no conflict between them since necessitates the combination of two opposites, which is not allowed.Al-Zarkashī, Al-Baḥr Al-Muḥīṭ, 8/124. (7)
In case the two pieces of evidence are indecisive, preponderance of one of them over the other should be maintained in accordance to the tools of Usūl al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence). The evidence that is more preponderant should be given precedence.
However, in case one of them is decisive while the other is not, precedence should be given to the decisive, be it narration-based evidence or reason-based evidence.Ibn Taimiyah, Dar’ Al-Taʿāruḍ, 1/79-80. Ibn Taimiyah has extensively discussed this point and answered Al-Rāzī’s misconception of Al-Qānūn Al-Kullī. (8)
Based on this explanation, we can see the error that underpins the claim of "reason’s precedence"; a mistake caused by pretenders of reason’s focus on the type of evidence rather than its rank of authenticity.
Admittedly, the correct approach requires the consideration of the rank of evidence, as follows:
If the reason-based evidence is decisive, it should be given precedence over the indecisive one in a conflict; or
If the reason-based evidence is indecisive, it should not be given precedence over the indecisive Hadith unless it is stronger than it. We should take into account that this strength should be decided in light of the well-established standards; or
If the Hadith is decisive, it undoubtedly takes precedence over the reason-based evidence.
However, we should take into account that decisiveness in the Prophetic Sunnah is not exclusively restricted to Mutawātir (i.e. the consecutively-transmitted Hadiths), but rather that there is a large number of Āhād (solitary-transmitted Hadiths) that are decisive in terms of authenticity and denotations. This may be the result of some signs surrounding the Hadith, such as fame and wide circulation. In addition, the Hadith may have been recorded by the two Sheikhs: Al-Bukhārī and Muslim or that the Ummah accepted it as authentic, etc.Ibn Taymiyah, Majmūʿ Al-Fatāwā, 18/48; Ibn Ḥajar, Al-Nukat ʿAlā Kitāb Ibn Al-Ṣalāḥ, 1/377-379. (9)
Ibn ʿAbd Al-Barr (may Allah have mercy upon him) said: "Well-versed jurists and traditionists in all Muslim countries agree, as far as I know, on the acceptance of the Hadith narrated by a just narrator and that it is obligatory to apply it as long as it is well proven and not abrogated by another report or consensus. Apart from al-Khawārij and the heretic sects, this is the opinion of all jurists in every era, from the time of the companions to our current time."Ibn ʿAbd Al-Barr, Al-Tamhīd, 1/2. (10)
To summarize, the mistake of those people who incorrectly maintain this division of the reason-based evidence and the narration-based evidence into decisive and indecisive stems from their misunderstanding of the Sharia evidence. In this way, the narration-based evidence no longer produces in their hearts and souls the same certainty produced by the reason-based evidence, which caused them to refrain from the solitary-narrated reports, and they thus find it easy to reject any misconception that goes against their perceptions.
It will be a considerable danger, therefore, to subject the Sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ) to those people’s disputed reasons. Maintaining meanwhile that all good is to give precedence to the Prophetic Sunnah and to give reason the chance to explain it, in line with the fact that reason (i.e. a creature) should follow the Revelation of the Creator, not to be in conflict with it.
For my beloved brothers who love the messenger of Allah (ﷺ), I guarantee that they will achieve all of their religious and political objectives, just as their pious ancestors did in the first generation, if they follow the Prophetic Sunnah and wisely apply its injunctions in accordance with its well-established principles. Allah is All-Guide to the truth; there is no god but Allah.
