A Response to Muhammad Rashid Rida, Who Established the Rule: "If Reason Conflicts with Revelation, Reason Takes Precedence over Revelation"

The Shaykh : Here we must say: there is a delusional rule whose black banners were raised by one of the great scholars of al-Azhar in his time; he is Muhammad 'Abduh, and he was followed in this—regrettably—by a man who holds a high status and rank in our hearts; he is: Rashid Rida (may Allah have mercy on him). They established a false rule: "If reason conflicts with revelation, reason is given precedence over revelation." This is false speech. If reason conflicts with revelation, it is obligatory to give precedence to revelation over reason for two reasons. First: there is no single reason to which one can refer; the minds of people differ, like the difference between trees, leaves, and flowers, and so on. There is absolutely no unity that gathers them. What is reasonable to Zayd is not reasonable to another, and there are people in between, between this and that, and so on. Therefore, for this first reason, it is necessary to give precedence to revelation over reason, because there is no reference point there called "reason" to which we would return if we disagreed. As for revelation, it is preserved by the preservation of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) of it, as He (Mighty and Majestic) said: . Then Allah (Mighty and Majestic) made the Imams of Hadith subservient to preserve the explanation of this preserved Qur'an; they preserved for us the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), which explains the Noble Qur'an, as mentioned in His saying (Mighty and Majestic): . This explanation is the Sunnah. So the Qur'an is preserved, and the Sunnah is also preserved; thus, revelation is preserved and reason is not preserved. Therefore, the one who refutes the falsehood is the one who says: "If reason and revelation differ, reason is given precedence over revelation"; this is false speech. The correct view is that it is obligatory for every Muslim to give precedence to revelation over reason; but not every revelation is what we mean; rather, it is the established revelation from the Messenger (peace be upon him). Otherwise, perhaps you all share with me the knowledge that there are fabricated hadiths, weak hadiths, and denounced narrations circulating among people by hearing, writing, publishing, and broadcasting. So, what we mean by giving precedence to revelation over reason is the correct, established revelation from Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). If that is the case, then if it is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , the previous rationalization is refuted, because it is a rational rationalization. This is the first reason; namely, revelation contradicts that reason, and because it is the reason of one specific person. The second reason: the continuation of the Muslims' practice of this condition for several centuries; even in the era of the Ottoman state, whose king, or rather, whose caliph, was a non-Arab Turk, they tried to adhere to this condition, even if only formally; where they would place a man from the people of Quraysh, a Qurayshi, next to the king, as if he were the original authority and this one was his deputy. We do not care about this formality, of course, because we fight against formalities entirely; but our argument first is: the continuation of the practice of this condition in the first, second, and third centuries in the Umayyad and Abbasid states, until the Abbasid state perished—regrettably—then many, many small states came; but this Muhammad al-Fatih the Ottoman established this formal practice: that a Qurayshi man be next to this Ottoman ruler; because it is established in their Hanafi school: that the Imams are from Quraysh. So this is a second proof that refutes the previous rationalization, which returns, or whose result is that this ruling was a ruling—as they say today—a temporal ruling, or a modern ruling. The hadith and the continuation of the practice of it refutes this claim, and it is necessary in the end of this answer to remind of His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): . The point is: If a sect from the sects that deviated from the Sunnah, or an individual, or a party claims that this hadith is first: not authentic, or authentic but not mass-transmitted; the response to them is from two aspects. First: it is mass-transmitted, as witnessed by the Commander of the Faithful in his time in the hadith: Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. Second: it is a legal ruling, not a creed. Regarding creed: there is an opinion, and it is a false opinion. (And do not drink with your left hand, may Allah forgive you). There is an opinion, and it is a false opinion, that distinguishes between rulings and creed, and conditions that the hadith be mass-transmitted for creed, but does not condition this for a ruling; so we say: this is a ruling, not a creed. It is a condition that the ruler be knowledgeable; this is a ruling. That he be Qurayshi; this is a ruling. That he be Muslim; this is a ruling. And so on. So it is sufficient for us that the hadith here is authentic; how much more so when it is authentic and mass-transmitted? Second—and finally—the Muslims have practiced it; so let the one who opposes it beware of entering into the warning of His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): . Is there a question there? No, there. Please.