Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Bismillahi wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi sallallahu alayhi wasallam, amma ba'da. In the name of Allah, and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. Now then...
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Brothers and sisters, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you and introduce you to a brand new show and a brand new podcast called The Hot Seat.
To understand a little bit more about The Hot Seat, we first have to understand the context of the modern-day world we find ourselves living in, in the year 2019. It is a world in which, perhaps, there are more doubts, misconceptions, and misinterpretations being thrown around about the religion of Islam than in any other period of time in the history of mankind. The internet is the number one source used by people globally to acquire information on any topic, and it is riddled with and full of false notions and erroneous ideologies about the Deen of Allah. Our kids, and ourselves, are being exposed to this kind of information on a daily, and if not daily, then at the very least on a weekly basis.
And whether we know it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not, it is having an effect on ourselves, our hearts, our minds, and ultimately our understanding of this beautiful religion. To further complicate the problem, many of us find ourselves living in Western societies where the governments and the social norms and pressures are constantly trying to redefine what is good and what is bad, what is accepted and what is rejected, what Islam is and is allowed to be, and what Islam is never allowed to be. All of this, my brothers and sisters, ultimately leads to confusion; it leads to ignorance, and if Allah permits, it can lead to misguidance.
The Hot Seat has therefore been designed with the permission of Allah alone to counter these kinds of modern-day, contemporary issues head-on by using the knowledge and the guidance of the Muslims of the past, the early generations of Muslims, the best of generations. There is not a single Muslim on the face of the planet today who would doubt the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala (Glory be to Him) completed our religion for us over 1400 years ago, and that that completed, holistic, perfect religion is just as applicable now in the year 2019 as it was back then. We truly do have classical solutions for contemporary problems.
However, this isn’t your normal, average Islamic lecture series. First of all, it’s not a lecture; it’s a discussion between two parties, often opposing parties, in an attempt to reach the truth, bi’idhnillah (with the permission of Allah). And secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it’s a unique, one-of-its-kind, interactive podcast where you, from the comfort of your own home, have the opportunity to vote for and choose the topic we’ll be discussing on the show.
You also have the chance to ask your own questions on these contemporary issues and to grill the speaker if you feel like you haven’t been grilled enough on the show itself. I’ll be releasing details of how you can do both of those things at the end of this episode. But for now, without any further ado, let’s get into this episode of The Hot Seat.
وَإِن تَعْجَبْ فَعْجَبٌ قَوْلُهُمْ أَيْذَا كُنَّا تُرَابًا أَيْنَّا لَفِي خَلْقٍ جَدِيدٍ أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ وَأُولَئِكَ الْأَغْلَالُ فِي أَعْنَاقِهِمْ وَأُولَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ And if you are amazed, then amazing is their saying: "When we are dust, will we indeed be raised in a new creation?" Those are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord, and those will have shackles upon their necks, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally. (Quran 37:16-18)
As-salāmu alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Once again, I’m joined on The Hot Seat podcast with Ustadh Abdur Rahman Hassan, Khafidhullah wa Ta'ālā (May Allah protect him). Ustadh, how are you doing today? Alhamdulillah (All praise is due to Allah). JazakAllah khayran (May Allah reward you with good). JazakAllah khayran for joining me. We have a really interesting topic for discussion today.
And it’s the old debate between reason and revelation. Reason, broadly meaning logic, and revelation, obviously being the text, the Qur’an, and the Sunnah. Are they actually in contradiction with one another? What happens if they appear to be in contradiction with one another? Which one do we prefer? All of these things we, insha’Allah (if Allah wills), will be discussing over the next hour or so.
The Hot Seat with Ustadh Abdur Rahman Hassan - Aql (Intellect)
I'd like to start as we normally do on The Hot Seat with a definition. What is the definition of aql in the Arabic language? الحمد لله رب العالمين، له الحمد الحسن والثناء الجميل، وأشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له، يقول الحق وهو يهدي السبيل، وأشهد أن سيدنا ونبينا محمد صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وأصحابه والتابعين لهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين، أما بعد:
The term aqala, which is the root word of aql, goes back to the meaning of man‘ (منع), meaning to prevent something or to stop something. The scholars say that’s why it’s called ‘iqāl al-ba‘īr (عقال البعير), the rope that is tied on the camel or the horse. This rope is called ‘iqāl, which comes from the same word as aql. It’s used to prevent the riding beast from running away.
The scholars also say that the reason aql is called aql is because it yamn‘ (يمنع) its owner from what is not befitting. It prevents the person from actions or statements that are inappropriate. And that’s what the author of the Kitāb Mu‘jam Maqāyīs al-Lugha (كتاب معجم مقاييس اللغة) said. He said that aql means al-ḥābis ‘an dhamīm al-qawl wa al-fi‘l (الحابس عن ذميم القول والفعل)*—it is that which prevents a person from an unwise or inappropriate statement or action. That’s what aql is there for.
Like in the work of Sibawayh’s teacher, Khaleel ibn Ahmad al-Farahīdi (خليل بن أحمد الفراهيدي), in the Kitāb al-‘Ayn (كتاب العين), some scholars question whether the book can be attributed to him, but the point is that Khaleel ibn Ahmad al-Farahīdi said that aql is naqdīj al-jahl (نقيض الجهل), which means it is the opposite of ignorance.
And while we're at this point, it’s important to mention that when it comes to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, aql is actually divided into four types.
- Al-Ghadhīrah (الغريزة): The innate ability that Allah has placed inside a human. In other words, it’s what people consider you to be sane. If you don’t have it, they’ll consider you to be insane. It distinguishes humans from all other species and gives us unique, distinct characteristics and attributes.
- Al-‘Ulūm al-Ḍarūriyah (العلوم الضرورية): The essential knowledge, the knowledge which everyone shares. For example, everyone here knows that one is more than half—essential knowledge.
- Al-‘Ulūm al-Nadhariyah (العلوم النظرية): Theoretical knowledge. This type is also referred to as aql. It means the knowledge that’s specific to a person who has the ability to observe, research, and critically analyze something. That’s the third type.
- ‘Amal bil-‘Ilm (العمل بالعلم): Implementing knowledge is also called aql. When a person applies the knowledge they have, it is referred to as aql. As Allah said in the verse: وَقَالُوا لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ وَنَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِي أَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ فَاعْتَرَفُوا بِذَنْبِهِمْ فَسُحْقًا لِّأَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ (And they said, "If we had listened or used our reason (aql), we would not be among the companions of the Blaze.") (Quran 67:10)
There's one point I want to make, which is that whenever you hear the concept of reason versus revelation, from those four types of aql, it’s only referring to theoretical knowledge. That’s the only type of logic or aql (intellect) that can go against revelation. Whether it can or can't is something we'll discuss further, but it’s that third type—aql in the form of theoretical knowledge—not the other three. That’s the main type we’re going to focus on in today’s podcast.
Do you want to unpack that a bit more? Tell us a little more about exactly what this type means?
So, when it comes to reasoning, they divide it into three types: deduction, induction, and abduction.
Deduction: This is a conclusion reached based on evidences that were gathered. It’s based on observational evidence. Sometimes it can be flawed, or it can be a fallacy, even an illogical absurdity. For example, a person might say: “All apples are fruits. This is a fruit.” Then they conclude, “Therefore, it is an apple.” You can see how flawed that is, even though it might seem plausible at first. The premises are sound, but the conclusion is wrong. That’s called deduction.
Induction: A person observes many data points. They look at many things and from there they reach a final conclusion. It’s called induction. It’s based on how much you’ve seen and how much you’ve observed. Later, when we talk about whether intellect and reasoning are restricted or unrestricted, we’ll discuss this more.
Abduction: Abduction usually starts with observing something and looking at something for which the data or information you have is very limited. You don’t have much, and then you reach a general statement or try to best explain it. That’s roughly what the three types mean.
I'd like to add a fourth point, especially when we're talking about the role that intellect plays in religion. This is something I see as quite common, and it’s the issue of confirmation bias. Essentially, a person is "brainwashed" into a religion from birth. They’re told that this religion is true, and later on in life, they may start to use their reason, their intellect. They may come across scientific knowledge, and they interpret all of that information in line with what they were previously taught—that this religion is true.
So, either they’ll reinterpret the text itself or they’ll reinterpret the scientific information they come across later in life to ensure it aligns with the text. This is something I see many religious people doing. Would you agree with this?
You see, there's a book I read recently, written by John Lennox, called Did Science Bury God? or Can Science Explain Everything? I think it was one of those titles. The point is, John Lennox mentioned something I found very insightful, and I really benefited from it. He said that there are two types of explanations.
If someone came into the kitchen and saw you boiling water and asked, "What is this?" there are at least two explanations you could give. You could give a scientific explanation by saying that heat is boiling the water from beneath, which agitates the molecules. You could also say, "Oh, I just want tea." One explanation doesn’t invalidate the other, and this is the problem I hope to tackle more, Inshallah. The assumption that when science comes, it shuts everything else down, and is the only explanation—leaving nothing else to explain—is itself an unscientific statement.
So, Inshallah, I think we’ll discuss that more.
Okay, you’ve unpacked the issue of logic and the definition of intellect quite nicely, and of course, we’re all well aware of what revelation is—it’s the Qur’an and the Sunnah. But does intellect have any role? What kind of level does it have in religion?
The intellect in our religion holds a high position. Allah Ta'ala has set the condition for obligations such as Salah (prayer), Zakat (charity), and Hajj (pilgrimage) to be based on intellect. The intellect I’m referring to here is sanity. Allah Ta'ala did not burden a person with the obligation of prayer if they lack intellect.
You know the famous Hadith where the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "The pen is lifted from three: the one who is sleeping until he wakes up, the young child until he reaches the age of puberty, and the insane person until he regains sanity." This shows that if a person does not have intellect, they are not burdened with religious duties.
Evidence that Islam Honors the Intellect:
- First evidence: If you don’t have intellect, you are not burdened with anything.
- Second evidence: The Qur'an and Sunnah urge us to use our intellect. Whenever you come across a verse in the Qur'an where Allah Ta'ala says, "Do they not reflect?" or "Do they not ponder over the creation of the heavens and the earth?"—these are clear encouragements to use our intellect. Allah says, "Why did they not travel the earth and look at how the creation began?" This call to use reason was made long before modern science emphasized the importance of exploring the world.
- Third evidence: Allah Ta'ala praises those who use their intellect and reason. Allah says, "Only those who have intellect take the reminder to heart."
- Fourth evidence: Allah rebuked those who forsake using their intellect. Allah says, "When they are told, 'Follow that which your Lord has sent down,' they say, 'We will follow that which we found our forefathers doing.'" Even if their forefathers lacked intellect and were not rightly guided, they chose to blindly follow their ancestors without using their own reason.
From these points, it’s clear that the intellect holds a high station in Islam.
Fifth evidence: Allah Ta'ala made the intellect one of the five necessities that must be protected. The scholar Ibn Qudamah, in his book Al-Muqni (and through consensus among scholars), mentions that if someone causes harm to another’s intellect, it is as if they have killed the person, and they must pay a full diyah (blood money). This highlights the critical importance of the intellect, as it is considered an essential component of human life.
To say that Islam does not honor the intellect and reason is a mistaken belief and a false argument.
Is the Intellect the Overriding Feature of the Religion?
Now, what I understand from this is that the intellect plays a dominant role in the religion, and it should be prioritized above everything else, correct? When it comes to reasoning, thinking, and the mind, Ahlus Sunnah (the people of the Sunnah) follow the middle path. They avoid the extremes of both exaggeration and negligence.
In any issue, you tend to find two extremes—diametrically opposed to one another. The first extreme is exaggeration, and the second is negligence. Ahlus Sunnah occupies the middle ground.
The people who are extreme in exaggeration are Ahlul Kalam—those who give excessive importance to reasoning. This includes groups like the Mu'tazila and the Asha'ira. We’ll talk more about them, but the key figure for the Asha'ira is Fakhruddin Al-Razi, who is considered to have presented the most arguments for Asha'iriyah, even though he didn’t lay the initial foundations. The first foundations were laid by Abi Ma'ali Al-Juwayni.
These groups, the Asha'ira, the Maturidiyah, and similar factions, are collectively referred to as Ahlul Kalam. They exceeded the limits when it came to the intellect (Aqal). They placed excessive emphasis on reason and intellect, often going beyond what is permitted. Their approach was extreme, and they sometimes gave the intellect precedence over other matters.
Would you agree that they sometimes went to the extreme by saying that reason and intellect should be placed above everything else?
They placed and they gave the Aqal (عقل) and they gave allowance to the Aqal (عقل) and a lead way to the Aqal (عقل) in places that it's not filled with expertise. It's not a place that it should talk in. This is not its place. Even though we've agreed that it has such a high role in the religion, which I will expand on later, Inshallah Ta'ala (إن شاء الله تعالى), but the Aqal (عقل) according to the Asha'ira (الأشاعرة) and the Mu'tazila (المعتزلة) and the Maturidiyah (الماتريدية), they've done Ghuloo (غلو). They went overboard with it. We know the Aqal (عقل). It can't... The Aqal (عقل) can bring you to... The Aqal (عقل) can bring you to the belief of Allah Azawajal (الله عز وجل) and that Allah exists, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala (سبحانه وتعالى), and it can bring you into the general guidance, the comprehensive guidance. But detailed issues of guidance, the Aqal (عقل) can't do that. It's not its field of expertise, and I'll talk about that later, Inshallah Ta'ala (إن شاء الله تعالى).
The second group, who are extremely negligent, are the Sufiyyah (الصوفية), the Mutasawwifah (المتصوفة). The Sufiyyah (الصوفية), they rebuked the Aqal (عقل) and they rebuked anything related to the Aqal (عقل), the mindset and the thinking process, and psychological observation. All of that, they threw under the bus. For them, it has no weight whatsoever. That's why you find the Mutasawwifah (المتصوفة), their Awliya (أولياء), are sometimes considered to be people who are insane. You go to some places in the world, and you find that they are worshipping or they see a Wali (ولي), a man who's thrown off his clothes, who's naked, and they'll say, "This is a Wali (ولي) from the Awliya Allah Azawajal (أولياء الله عز وجل)." The Mutasawwifah (المتصوفة), if you look at it, a lot of them drank alcohol and they were intoxicated, and they... So they don't... And that's something that damages the sanity, right? That's something that damages the Aqal (عقل) and the way that the person thinks. So the Sufiyyah (الصوفية), they went to the other extreme of not giving any consideration to the Aqal (عقل). And so, when scientists and modern-day Western academics see these types of Sufiyyah (الصوفية), then they think, "This is what Islam is like. This is what the religion is like," which is not true. Now, so where are Ahlus Sunnah (أهل السنة) in between them today?
So, Ahlus Sunnah believe that the Aqal (عقل) has a majal (مجال). It has a position, it has a field, it’s got a role in the religion, and its role is not unrestricted. For that reason, they say, they believe that the Aqal (عقل), even though it has a great station in our religion, even though it's considered high, is not free to do whatever it wants. And they say that the Aqal (عقل) gives many examples.
I just want to give you a basic, understandable example that many can digest, and that is: your mobile phone. It works, right? Does it not mean a lot to you? Does it not do a good job? But when you go to another country, your network doesn't necessarily work. Or if you go to a place where there is no network, your phone stops working. So, this has a boundary of how it works.
The Aqal (عقل) is like your eyesight. Your eyesight works, it functions, and you can see things, but it’s limited in what it can see. You can't see everything. There’s a distance you can see up to. The Aqal (عقل) is exactly the same. There’s a distance in how far it can see. You can't just make your eyesight unrestricted and say, "I can see any and everything."
For that reason, they say three things. Three things Ahlus Sunnah (أهل السنة) say that the Aqal (عقل) is restricted here; it can’t talk about it. This is not its field of expertise.
The first one is: the Aqal (عقل) can't talk about the unseen. Because remember what I said to you before, the induction, sorry, the deduction, the induction, and the abduction, which are the three kinds of reasoning, all three of them are based on observation—things that you can see—and that's what the Aqal (عقل) works on. The Aqal (عقل) works on what it can see. It works on what it can observe. That's where it then brings a conclusion from. That's where it brings inferences from. But if you don't have the ability to see something, then the Aqal (عقل) has no room to talk about these issues.
Number two is: the Aqal (عقل) cannot by itself guide. No, it can't. You see, it's not independent in guiding. That's why Ibn Al-Qayyim (ابن القيم) said that the Aqal (عقل) is not independent in guiding. It can’t. The Aqal (عقل) cannot give you detailed guidance. No.
Sorry, I really want to unpack this because this is where most of the discussion takes place. You’re basically saying that the Aqal (عقل) has limitations, without a doubt. How do you come to know that Islam is the truth and worshipping an idol is false? You see, when I said it's restricted and it's limited, that doesn't mean it's not functioning. It does function, of course it functions. And I said it to you before that something that you created for you to worship, what you created, and that depends on you, is an illogical observance. Exactly.
So, it's actually your logic and your reasoning that you come to know the ultimate truth about the world itself and the reason why we're created to worship Allah alone. If that's the case with the ultimate truth, the most important thing, then how can you say that for things lower than that, the Aqal (عقل) won't work?
Okay, in the book Darul Ta'arud Al-Aqal Wal Naqal, Shaykh Hussain Taimis said something very powerful in there. He said, "I took you to a doctor, you were ill, you said, 'I need a doctor who can specialize in this.' Can someone take me to the doctor?" I put my finger up and said, "I can help you, let me take you to the doctor." So, I grabbed you by the hand, and I took you to the doctor.
Now, now that I've taken you to the doctor and you've sat and spoken to the doctor, and you've conversed with the doctor, the doctor, of course, is going to prescribe a medicine for you and he's going to tell you what your illness is. How about if I say to you, "I was the one who brought you to the doctor. You wouldn't have known the doctor. So listen to me now, don’t do what the doctor told you. Do this, because I'm the one who brought you to the doctor."
You're going to be like, "That's an illogical absurdity. What are you talking about?"
Yeah, I understand. I understand what you're saying. I want you to understand something. This issue—Sheikh al-Islam Taimiyah authored a book on it, a 10-volume book. And I'll tell you something very important. You see, within Islam, there were smart thinkers.
Before I go into this, there was a point I was going to mention, I just don’t want to forget it. I said that the Aqal, even though it has a weight in our religion, there are three things it cannot talk about. The first one was what I said is the Aqal cannot talk about the unseen. The second I said is that the Aqal cannot independently guide you by itself without revelation. It can’t. And if anybody tries to do that, it will be misguided.
You see, the third thing I was going to say was that if two people are disputing one another, you can’t necessarily reconcile them with just rational arguments. You cannot. Because every individual’s rational mind is not superior to the other. Yours is not higher than mine. There has to be a higher authority that can govern all of us. That’s why Allah said in the ayah.
So you made three important points that I think are worth talking about in a little bit more detail. The first point, I don’t think there can be much disagreement on this. The Aqal can’t tell you about knowledge of the unseen because we can’t see that.
The second point, the point that you mentioned—the first point is very important because it’s—sorry to interrupt you—but it’s important because this is where a lot of the modern-day militant atheists argue about. They say that, “How are you going to reconcile the law of nature and miracles?” And it’s very important that they understand that the Aqal has no majal to talk about these issues of miracles. That is not its boundaries and its limits.
Even though we can see certain things around us and we can see the laws of the universe operating around us, we know it’s completely unrealistic, for example, for a sea to be split open. Because we’ve been living life and that just doesn’t happen in life. And now you're saying that, for example, Musa A.S. split open a sea. This is what you would classify as a miracle with the permission of Allah, of course. That doesn’t match up to the intellect, I’m sorry. I know, again, that’s my point.
That’s again for the Aqal to understand that it’s not its majal. It’s not its field. It shouldn’t be talking about the unseen. So anyone can claim anything. I can say, on the way here to Sharjah, I just saw a four-legged man who had the face of a horse. It’s unseen to you, and your intellect says, “No, this doesn’t seem right,” but my point is your intellect has a limit. You have to believe.
But that’s my point. It brings you to the issue of number one. Do you think that the Aqal—that’s what I want you to understand—do you really think that the Aqal (for example) there’s many things that we cannot fathom, but we still believe in them? We still—we can’t fathom.
What's an example? For example, we believe in gravitational force. No one can actually define for you what gravity is. We can see the effects of gravity working right now. I can see the effects of that. But that's exactly God, right? I can't.
Scientists are saying that we don't, for example, some atheists are saying today, "We don't believe in God because we can't observe Him. We can't see Him. We need to see Him. Seeing is believing." So everything has become empirical evidence. I'm seeing gravity now. So my question to you is, you're not seeing gravity, you're seeing the effects of gravity.
Correct? Yes.
So exactly. My point is that Allah Azzawajalla, you're not seeing Him, but you're seeing the effect of what He's done. And I think this is important to understand well.
There’s many ways I can tackle that point, but I just want to make it simple and easy for the people. I want them to understand: don’t give the Aqal an unrestricted role. Your eyesight, as I said before, can see, but it needs light to see. If you switch off the light in your room, your eyesight, even though it can see, can’t see in the dark.
You see the issue I have with this? The Aqal—even though it can, it works, it functions, it's good, and it brings about a lot of amazing things into this world—but if there’s no revelation to shine the path for it, the Aqal will go all over the place.
When Einstein developed the theory of general relativity, I mean, the relativity theory, before him was Isaac Newton, who had already put forth his theories. His work was put under scrutiny, it was undisputed. Many scientists tried it, they tested it, and there was no need for anyone to come after him and try to correct or modify it. But Einstein did.
And so, this is the power of the human mind. I was reading Subhanallah, the Enigma code, you know, the Enigma code used by the Germans in World War II. There was a man by the name of Alan Turing. What he did was look into the Enigma code. He read it through mathematical theories and equations and was able to break the Enigma code and basically stop World War II—or bring it to a halt—saving millions of people.
And again, I may not agree with these people's Aqidah or their beliefs, but it does show you the power of human reasoning, the power of thinking. And there is no dispute or argument regarding that.
You know, but the point here is that when somebody just puts the Aqidah in a place that it doesn't deserve, it's... you know, the Aqidah is like a leader. Okay? It's like a leader. It governs a particular land. It can't govern the whole entire world. It governs a particular land. And as time goes on, the Aqidah—sorry, the leader—loses his position. So there are times when the logic, and the mind, and human thinking, there's moments where the naqal will say to it, "Wait." The naqal, meaning the text and the revelation, will say to it, "Look, this is not your... it's not your field. This is not... you're not entitled to speak about it." Don't you think your approach is actually leading to a community of backwards people?
So we, I think, Islam and the Muslims are one of the only communities that I've seen where the aqil (intellects) are actually looked down upon. Where someone comes up with an opinion, and you say, "Don't worry about him. He just uses his intellect." In every other community in the world, they actually push forward critical thinking, logic, reasoning. These are seen as good things. And in our community, we seem to suppress it and say, "No, don't use your intellect." It's making the scientific people laugh at us, so it's making us look backwards.
Okay, this issue I really want people to understand is that the issue of revelation and reason having to be reconciled between the two is actually not true.
What do you mean?
You see, Ahlus Sunnah believe there is no conflict, to be honest, between a sound mind, sound reasoning, and an authentic revelation, an authentic text. There's no conflict between the two, to be honest. The conflict is something on your side. They're not contradicting one another. You think they are, but there isn't.
Okay, let's use that. Let's take an example: Shaytan urinates in the ear of the person who misses Salatul Fajr. Is that an authentic text?
Oh, no, without a doubt.
Okay, I wake up in the morning, I can't feel the urine. I can't smell the urine. My intellect is clearly contradicting what the sound text is saying.
You see, again, you're saying that what is considered to be proof and what is considered to be evidence is that which can be seen, smelled. Is that all you're saying? That's my intellect. You're saying that intellect is limited?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm actually saying that intellect... You believe in things you can't see. You believe in things that you can't hear. You believe in things that you can't smell. You believe in things that are not empirical.
Give me an example. For example, you believe in the cosmos. You believe in the beginning, the starting of this universe, and how it started. You believe in many things, like gravitational force. I just said to you, there are many things that you believe in which you can't observe.
Okay, but all of these things, I can observe the effect of them. I can't observe the effect of urine.
Yes, now you can. I'll tell you the effect. Sleeping paralysis is something that is exactly what the Messenger ﷺ told us. He told us ﷺ that sleeping paralysis is Shaytan, for example, telling the person to go to sleep. This is the important concept I want us to understand. There's many other things I want to talk about, I just don't want to go into it now because this is not the correct podcast for it. But there is a concept which they call "the God of the gaps." Whenever you can't explain something, you just squeeze a god in there, and that's your answer for everything. And then as time goes on, science will disprove it, and the god would pop out of that gap. And the gap gets tighter and tighter as time goes on. And that's what they say. And I don't want to go into that now. I really want to discuss that if we ever have a podcast on atheism and their common arguments.
But let me go back to what I was saying. There is no conflict, really, between sound reasoning and an authentic text. There isn't. But idadika (the scholars) say any individual who is closer to the revelation, you will tend to find that they have the most sound reasoning. I was reading Lars Krauss. He allows incest. I mean, he says that, you know, because he is far from revelation. So you see that he will... Richard Dawkins, he permitted and he can see... he doesn't see any problem with mild pedophilia. So their distance from revelation has actually caused their intellect to become more deficient.
That's what you're saying?
Yeah, exactly. Let me give you an example of some Islamic thinkers. For instance, I was saying before, Shaykh al-Islam al-Taymiyyah, the book he wrote—he wrote a kitab called Dar'u ta'arud al-aql wal-naql. And this kitab is a refutation of Fakhruddin al-Razi. He's refuting Fakhruddin al-Razi. Fakhruddin al-Razi was one of the greatest Islamic thinkers. He was a person who used aql to its maximum. He used it to its maximum. He stretched his brain. He was a great thinker, without a shadow of a doubt. There's something he came up with which was known as Al-Qanun al-Kulli. I want to explain it quickly. Al-Qanun al-Kulli is that two premises and an inference. Two premises and a conclusion. So he said Qadhiya Ta'arud al-aql wal-naql—that the aql goes against the naql. The aql (which is reasoning and thinking and rationality) versus text. So he already, as you mentioned before, confirmation bias—he already alluded, he already made suppositions that there is a conflict between naql and aql.
Okay, and then he said Taqdeem al-aqli a'an al-naql, which is the second premise he put: that you give precedence to rationality over the text. And then last but not least, evidence for that is that the aql is the foundation, and the naql is the sub-branch. Or, in other words, he said in text, it benefits us... speculation—like, it doesn't, it's speculative. It's actually not clear-cut.
Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah felt, "Okay, this doesn't make sense." So what Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah did was he responded to him in 44 different angles, 44 different perspectives, 44 different... which... in 10 volumes. And at the beginning, he responds... First of all, he divides his answers into two.
Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. The first answer he gives is a jawab mujmal (general answer). It’s only four lines, which might be enough, but of course, they won't take it. So what he did was, he went into 44 different angles of responding, spanning 10 volumes.
The arguments that Fakhruddin Al-Razi brought, to be honest, he wasn’t the first to bring them. Al-Qadhi Abdul Jabbar Al-Hamadani (the Mu'tazili) said it before him. Abu Ma'ali Al-Juwaini said it before him in Kitab Al-Irshad. Even Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali mentioned it in his book Kitab Al-Qarn Al-Ta'weel.
If today that book could be translated in its totality into the English language, it would be an amazing book. Ibn al-Qayyim said:
وَقَرَأْ كِتَابَ الْعَقْلِ وَالنَّقْلِ الَّذِي مَا فِي الْوُجُودِ لَهُ نَذِيرٌ ثَانِ "Read the book Al-Aql wa Al-Naql (Reason and Revelation), for verily there is no book like it."
You could actually say it’s a masterpiece of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s works. As for Fakhruddin Al-Razi, imagine this: I was reading Tariq al-Islam by Imam Al-Zahabi (rahimahu Allah). Fakhruddin Al-Razi, in his later stages, his last moments of life, said:
لَيْتَنِي لَمْ أَشْتَقِلْ بِالْكَلامِ وَبَكَى "I wish I hadn't busied myself with these philosophical arguments." And he cried.
He also said in a line of poetry:
لَقَدْ طُفْتُ فِي تِلْكَ الْمَعَاهِدِ كُلِّهَا "I have traveled through all these academic researches." وَسَيِّرْتُ طَرَفِي بَيْنَ تِلْكَ الْمَعَالِمِ فَلَمْ أَرَ إِلَّا "I have looked at all of them and I have seen nothing but people confused." إِلَّا وَاضِعَنْ كَفَّ حَائِرٍ عَلَى ذَقْنٍ أَوْ قَارِعَنْ سِنَّ نَادِمِ "Except for people who are confused, or who don’t know where things are going."
He said in another line of poetry:
لَقَدْ تَأَمَّلْتُ الطُّرُقُ الْكَلَامِيَةِ وَالْبَنَاهِجِ الْفَلْسَفِيَةِ "I looked at the philosophical methodologies and discourses." فَمَا رَأَيْتُ وَتَشْفِي عَلِيْلًا وَلَا تُرْوِي غَلِيْلًا "And I saw that it didn’t answer any questions."
Another famous line attributed to him is:
نِهَايَةُ إِقْدَامِ الْعُقُولِ عِقَالُ وَغَايَةُ السَّعِيِ الْعَالَمِينَ ضَلَالُ وَأَرْوَاحِنَا فِي وَحْشَةٍ مِنْ جُسُومِنَا وَحَاصِلُ دُنْيَانَ أَذَنُ وَوَبَالُ وَلَمْ نَسْتَفِدْ مِنْ بَحْتِنَا طُولَ عُمْرِنَا سِوَى أَنْ جَمَعْنَا فِيهِ قِيلَ وَقَالُ "The final ending of all these philosophical arguments is misguidance. Nothing substantial came from it. These are the words of a man who was one of the greatest Islamic thinkers."
Fakhruddin Al-Razi prioritized, in his early life, the aqidah (creed) over the text. When the Shi'a say “Al-Imam” they are referring to Fakhruddin Al-Razi—he is the one they mean, and no one else.
I really want you to understand one thing: scientists have to understand that science explains and argues things, but it is not, in any way, shape, or form, able to respond and answer everything. Science will never, ever tell us why we are in this universe or what our purpose in this dunya (world) is. Science can never do that; that’s not its field. It won’t be able to.
Look at one scientist today. He has so many different beliefs, so many different theories, many of which contradict each other. His own views are changing. I was reading the book Al-Araa Fakhruddin Al-Razi, written by a man named Mohammed Al-Zarqani. He wrote a book on Fakhruddin Al-Razi. I'm currently trying to summarize the book. It's talking about the philosophy and how Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Al-Ansari wrote another book on the philosophical arguments of Fakhruddin Al-Razi and how they affected his aqeedah (creed). These researches are written on him. Fakhruddin Al-Razi, on one issue, had 3 or 4 different views. To the extent that Sheikh Hussam in his 5th volume of Minhaj Al-Sunnah Al-Nabuwiyah said, "It’s sometimes hard to even say this is what Fakhruddin Al-Razi believes." The reason is that fully depending on the intellect (aql) confuses you. You don’t know what to say.
Okay, there is another issue that some people bring up. The reason and the motive behind pushing the fact that the text is superior to the intellect is that they want to control people. They want people to ask them questions, and they don't want people to think on their own. They want to be able to tell people exactly what to do and how to practice their religion. It’s just a form of control.
What do you have to say about that?
That would be a good argument if we were saying you have to follow humans or follow me. But if you're saying that you and I are both forced to follow the text, then as much as you have to, so do I. I don’t think it’s me trying to control you or you trying to control me. We are both being required to follow the text.
There is a hole in your argument, however. The scholars of hadith (prophetic traditions), who are the ones with the permission of Allah, are the ones who are actually preserving the text. They tend to disagree with you. For example, you have Imam Ibn Jawzi who said things like: “For a text to be authentic, a condition upon it is that it can’t go against reason.” So you’re sitting here saying that the authentic text should be pushed above the intellect, because the intellect has limitations, and he who is actually authenticating the text is saying that he only authenticates if it goes in line with his reason.
Again, what you have to understand is, as I said before, the text does not go against the intellect. I already said that it doesn’t happen. If it does, it’s subjective. It’s what you think. You just have to take it to someone who knows it, someone who can explain it to you.
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
"Allah’s texts don’t oppose one another." So, what do you do? Take it to a person of knowledge. I promise you, I’ll show you the list. It’s a deficiency on your side. He said, "If there is a conflict between a text and your rationality, and you are unable to fathom it, there are three possible situations."
I remember this all the time:
- The text is not authentic in the first place; it’s weak.
- You are unable to comprehend the text correctly.
- The rationality is deficient—you are the one who’s mistaken.
So it’s not possible that rationality and the text go against each other. I’m talking about rationality that is healthy, sound, and not coming from a deranged or insane mind, and the text is authentic.
Two things that seem to contradict one another cannot exist simultaneously unless both of them are present. First, you must try to understand it properly, and then, if you still don’t understand, question your own rationality.
If I am a layman Muslim and I come across a text that, to me, on the surface, contradicts my intellect, where do I go from there?
Let’s start with that question: Where do I go from there? Just like if you read a medical book, who do you take it to? Expertise? You take it to a specialized person. You ask him, "What do the scientists mean in this regard? What does this term mean? What is meant by this?" The same thing when you read the revelation. Take it to the experts, the people who are specialized in this field. And if the answer I’m given still doesn’t comfort my intellect, for example, what should I prioritize?
You see, Allah told us from the beginning of Islam, from the beginning of revelation. Allah told us in the Qur'an that there have always been two camps: The first camp is those who follow the revelation, and the second is those who follow their desires. Allah says in the ayah: فَإِلَّمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَكَ فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يَتَّبِعُونَ أَهْوَاهُمْ (Translation: "If they do not respond to you, know that they are following their desires.") The way that people follow their desires is different in various ways. A group of people follow their desires by giving the intellect an unrestricted platform where the intellect can do what it wishes and how it wishes. That’s one form of people who oppose it with their desires. Another group of people, the Sufis, oppose it based on their feelings and what they feel like. There are those who oppose the intellect based on customs and cultures—Ahl al-Taghrib (People of innovation). You see, they’ll say to you, “Our values are not this,” and “this is not what we believe.” The third group is those who rely on the statements of the Imams of their Madhab (school of thought) and say, “Our Madhab doesn’t believe this,” and “Our Imam never said this.”
So desires and revelations have always been in conflict, but not intellect. You mentioned before on this podcast that we should follow the religion the way the Companions followed it. Now, there is a Hadith where the Companions were sent away on a battalion, and the Prophet ﷺ set one of them as a leader. He commanded the rest of the group to jump into a fire. Now, if they were to follow the text like you’re suggesting, they would have jumped into the fire, because the Messenger ﷺ put this guy in charge, and he also said, “You should follow the Ameer (leader).” But they didn’t. They said, "No, this doesn’t make sense to us." They didn’t ask someone. Notice how they didn’t ask the Messenger ﷺ. They actually just said, "This doesn’t make sense to us, so we’re not going to jump into the fire." Afterwards, they went and asked the Messenger ﷺ, and he said, “You did the right thing by not jumping into the fire.”
Doesn’t this show that actually there are occasions where, when you are approached with a text and it doesn’t make sense to you, it is okay to follow what you believe? That’s what they did, right?
What you have to understand is that Messengers and Prophets were sent with that which is textual and that which is reasonable. Prophets didn’t come with things that are not reasonable, things that can’t rationally be fathomed, that can’t be understood. As I said to you before, Ibn al-Qayyim said in his Kitab al-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah (The Book of Sent Thunderbolts) that:
الكتاب المنزل والعقل المدرك "The proof of Allah against the creation is two things: The first one is the Kitab al-Munzal (Revelation), and the second is al-Aql al-Mudrik (rationality)." Both of them are the proof of Allah against the creation. So what these Sahabah (Companions) did was they took reason and revelation and reconciled them. They brought them together. There was no conflict, to be honest. They just saw that this is how it’s done. What they did was they obeyed the leader as the Prophet ﷺ told them. And that which is good, the concept of obedience, is not unrestricted. The Prophet ﷺ didn’t say, "Unrestrictedly obey him." The Prophet ﷺ said, "Obey him." So the intellect (Aql) will tell you where the obedience is and where it is not. The Prophet ﷺ reinforced that. He said: إِنَّمَا الطَّاعَةُ فِي مَا لَا مَعْصِيَةَ فِيهِ "Obedience is in that which is good." But they didn’t say, "Our Aql tells us not to obey the leader at all in any way, shape, or form."
Then you would say to me, "They did go against what the Messenger ﷺ said." Even the fact that they didn’t jump into the fire, that actually follows the revelation, which has told you not to commit suicide or harm yourself. So they were actually following the revelation by not doing that.
Okay, are there any statements from the Companions that talk about the limitation of the intellect (Aql) and how the text itself should be followed over the intellect?
I told you the statement of Ibn Abbas: He didn’t say it was a statement, but he said that the intellect (Aql) is like the eyesight. Just like the eyesight is limited in seeing, he said that the intellect is also limited in how far it can see. And so both of them are governed by the text. Ibn Taymiyyah said something very powerful. He said:
الشريعة جعلت العقل حاكماً ثم رفعت حاكمية العقل إذا شاءت "The Shari'ah gave governance and leadership to the intellect, and then it can take it down whenever it wishes." Also, Imam Ash-Shatibi said in simple terms: العقل يتبع والنص هو القائد "The intellect follows, and the text is the leader."
Okay, that was a really fascinating discussion. JazakAllah Khair (May Allah reward you with good) for the points that you made today. Until next time, I hope you enjoyed and benefited from that discussion. Please do share it with your friends and family members if you feel like they might benefit too. And don't forget to hit that subscribe button below so you're notified of any new episodes.
Check out www.thehotseatpodcast.com. On there, you'll find a little bit more information about the podcast, and you'll also have the chance to vote for which topic you'd like to see discussed on the show. You can also ask questions on the website to the speaker himself, for example, about these contemporary modern-day issues.
Until next time, As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you)
