The Refutation of Those Who Prioritize Reason over Transmission from Five Angles
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But we answer this by saying that employing reason in the domain of transmitted matters is contrary to reason.
Employing reason is contrary to reason. The point is that transmitted matters rely on mere report, and in matters of the unseen that have no counterpart, it is obligatory to accept the pure report, and there is no room for reason there. If we employ reason in the reporter of that report, that is contrary to reason, because this is a pure report, a pure report, into which analogy does not enter, so that we could say we are employing reason in it. Therefore, reason in this case is the adjudication of what? The transmission, because this is a pure report about something absent that has no counterpart, so the clear requirement of reason is to adjudicate the transmission only, to adjudicate the transmission only. This is while this statement is contradictory, because those who claim to adjudicate by reason are themselves contradictory. Sometimes one says: this reason prevents this attribute, and the second says it necessitates it, and the third says reason permits it—three statements. Indeed, one of these theologians contradicts himself; you find him writing a book in which he affirms what is affirmed of the attributes and says that reason indicated it, then he writes another book that refutes it. So to which reason do we return? To which reason? Is it the reason of Zayd or the reason of 'Amr? Is it the reason of Zayd in the beginning of his life or his reason in the end of his life? We do not know. So there is contradiction in it.
Thirdly: that returning to reason necessitates speaking about Allah without knowledge, in negation and affirmation. It necessitates speaking about Allah without knowledge, in negation and affirmation. You find the one who adjudicates by his reason in the domain of attributes saying this attribute is prohibited because reason prevents it, so he negates from Allah what Allah affirmed for Himself, and this becomes speaking about Allah without knowledge. Or he affirms an attribute that Allah did not affirm for Himself, so he becomes one who speaks about Allah, what? Without knowledge. These are four, four, or is it three?
The fourth: that returning to reason in the domain of attributes is contrary to what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon.
So it is an innovation, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan an-Nasa'i 1578Sahih (Darussalam) Sunan an-Nasa'i 1578Sahih (Darussalam). So it is now clear that they are mistaken.
Fifthly: their claim that reason is the origin of transmission in this domain is an error; it is not correct. Rather, the origin in this domain is what? The transmission, and reason is subordinate to it. This is the origin.
The origin in this domain, the domain of the attributes of Allah, is the transmission, and reason is subordinate to it. So their saying that reason is the witness of the bathroom, close, no, stand up, may Allah reward you, stand up and perform ablution, or look, sprinkle some water on yourself. Yes, we say: your claim that reason is the origin of this is not correct. Rather, the origin in this domain is what? The transmission, and reason is subordinate, reason is subordinate, because this is something, as we said at the beginning of the refutation, that relies on pure transmission or pure report, and there is no room for reason in it. These are five angles.
Employing reason is contrary to reason. The point is that transmitted matters rely on mere report, and in matters of the unseen that have no counterpart, it is obligatory to accept the pure report, and there is no room for reason there. If we employ reason in the reporter of that report, that is contrary to reason, because this is a pure report, a pure report, into which analogy does not enter, so that we could say we are employing reason in it. Therefore, reason in this case is the adjudication of what? The transmission, because this is a pure report about something absent that has no counterpart, so the clear requirement of reason is to adjudicate the transmission only, to adjudicate the transmission only. This is while this statement is contradictory, because those who claim to adjudicate by reason are themselves contradictory. Sometimes one says: this reason prevents this attribute, and the second says it necessitates it, and the third says reason permits it—three statements. Indeed, one of these theologians contradicts himself; you find him writing a book in which he affirms what is affirmed of the attributes and says that reason indicated it, then he writes another book that refutes it. So to which reason do we return? To which reason? Is it the reason of Zayd or the reason of 'Amr? Is it the reason of Zayd in the beginning of his life or his reason in the end of his life? We do not know. So there is contradiction in it.
Thirdly: that returning to reason necessitates speaking about Allah without knowledge, in negation and affirmation. It necessitates speaking about Allah without knowledge, in negation and affirmation. You find the one who adjudicates by his reason in the domain of attributes saying this attribute is prohibited because reason prevents it, so he negates from Allah what Allah affirmed for Himself, and this becomes speaking about Allah without knowledge. Or he affirms an attribute that Allah did not affirm for Himself, so he becomes one who speaks about Allah, what? Without knowledge. These are four, four, or is it three?
The fourth: that returning to reason in the domain of attributes is contrary to what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon.
So it is an innovation, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
every innovation is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire
كل بدعة ضلالة و كل ضلالة في النارand every going astray is in the Fire
و كل ضلالة في النارFifthly: their claim that reason is the origin of transmission in this domain is an error; it is not correct. Rather, the origin in this domain is what? The transmission, and reason is subordinate to it. This is the origin.
The origin in this domain, the domain of the attributes of Allah, is the transmission, and reason is subordinate to it. So their saying that reason is the witness of the bathroom, close, no, stand up, may Allah reward you, stand up and perform ablution, or look, sprinkle some water on yourself. Yes, we say: your claim that reason is the origin of this is not correct. Rather, the origin in this domain is what? The transmission, and reason is subordinate, reason is subordinate, because this is something, as we said at the beginning of the refutation, that relies on pure transmission or pure report, and there is no room for reason in it. These are five angles.