Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER TWO: between the mind and sacred texts

European and ecclesiastical heritage:

The contradiction or clash between the reasoning mind and the sacred texts is considered a European and ecclesiastical heritage, and this clash cannot be under stood except within this light. Different natures of both the sacred texts and the reasoning mind dono necessarily mean they are contradictory. For instance, we cannot say thatthee eyes would clash with the ears, or that hearing contradicts seeing, as each has its own distinctive function, which in turn might complement one another. Yet, sheets and sheets of European history and thought show that it is a deep-rooted conviction that there is contradiction or clash between the reasoning mind and the sacred texts. This was manifested three centuries before the advent of Islam and continued until the early modern era, i.e. 15 centuries. This main constituent of European history is taken for granted in the European thought and it would be hard to change it or accept ideas opposite to it.

What facilitates understanding of this phenomenon is that the clash was not between Christianity and the mind, but between the church and the liberty of thought. This clash occurred because of the emergence of the church as a religious institution and the sole representative of Christianity. The Christian religion demands clergy to perform religious rituals and social services, like baptism, burial of the dead, prayers, marriage, offering oblation and charity, confessions…etc. that is why Christians cannot conceive their religions without the church, and they say about it, ''Our mother the Church''. This led to the monopoly of the religious professions, and personal interests began to crystallize in the church. When Constantine the Emperor converted to Christianity in 323 A.D., the church had the support of political authority, and dissenters were persecuted. In 385 A.D., the Spanish hereticPresilian was sentenced to death by the order ofMaximus the Emperor. Saint Augustine himself in 430 A.D. justified persecution based on words purportedly ascribed to Christ:''Compel them to convert to your religion ''. According to this logic, he agreed to punishing the heretic with exile, whipping, and fines. Saint Augustine had written a constitution for the church to follow to face any rational movement or thought. He says in his book titled ''Comments on the book of Genesis " that, ''…It is not conceivable to believe a view contradictory to the sacred texts, as their authority exceeds any reason of the human mind''[2] .

In 390 A.D., the bishopTheophilus destroyed a library in the city of Alexandria. One century later, Saint Cyril,Theophilus's nephew, felt the danger of the cultural activity ofHypathia who used to teach mathematics and philosophy in the city of Alexandria, and her school sessions was full of audience. Saint Cyril incited the mob against her, and the mob attacked her on her way to her teaching sessions, tore her clothes and tore her body into pieces. In 529 A.D., Justinian the Emperor ordered to close all schools of philosophy. This approach continued even when the Greek studies flourished and the European society knew the philosophy of Averroes, and the European renaissance began. The church forbade John BaptistPorta to continue his studies in physics and chemistry in the second half of the 16 th century. Scientific research societies and academies at the time in Paris, London, Napoli, and Florence, were persecuted by the church, especially DelShimento that began its sessions in Florence in 1657 under the auspices of the prince Leopold De Medici, and included the elite people of scientific research. The motto of this academy was 'Refuting any philosophical doctrine even if it was revered, and the necessity of studying natural phenomena in light of empiricism'. They applied this motto with enthusiasm, and their studies and research bore fruit. For instance, there are the contributions of Borelli in mathematics andRedi in physics and others in other branches of scientific research. All of them widened the scope of knowledge in fields like temperature, light, magnetism, electricity, gravity, digestion, pressure …etc. their approach was right in scientific research, and their academy was a fortified bastion for new knowledge. Yet theologians accused them of being heretic infidels and the president of the academy was offered the position of a cardinal to dismantle the academy. The academy resisted its opponents like a bastion for 10 years before its fall. Its members resisted until their last drop of blood. Borelli, for instance, was persecuted and forced to beg when he went broke, andOliva was forced to commit suicide to flee the torture of the Inquisition Court.[3]

Before this,Pruno was sentenced to death in 1600 because he believed the theories of Copernicus that were opposed by the Catholics and the Protestants.Pruno was the one who paved the way for the modern theory of nebula, but the court sentenced him to death without shedding his blood, that is why he was burned alive. In Florence, another reformer, named Savonarola, was killed in the same manner. With the emergence of printing, the Church began supervising and banning some printed books; for instance, the Pope Alexander V issued a decree in 1501 to ban printing books except with permission from the Pope. Henry VIII of France made printing without permission a crime punishable by death. Germany began censorship of printed books in 1529. Books were never printed in England during the reign of Elizabeth I except with permission. There were no print houses in England at the time except in London, Oxford, and Cambridge. Printing in England was supervised by the Star Chamber, and these restrictions were not removed until a century ago. [4]

With the new research in astronomy, a series of persecution ensued, from the persecution of Copernicus to the trial of Galileo. The Church was adamant in its refusal of new science due to fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, and ignorance, sticking to the Old Testament story of creation that shows the earth as a flat surface, and as the center of the universe. These matters were not in the main theological issues tackled by Christ and his disciples, yet these matters were the axis of the most powerful wave of persecution of science and mind. The stubbornness of the Church was exemplified by the sentenced uttered by one authority of the church, '' the stability of the earth is a concept thrice sacred…we can tolerate the utter disappearance of souls, the denial of the existence of God and His incarnation in a human form, yet we can never tolerate the view that the earth revolves…''[5] . Others in the Church have defined the date of the creation of the world: at nine AM, 23 rdof October in the year 4004 BC. [6]

The insistence of church authorities over such issues at that time, when horizons of knowledge opened in fields of geology, astronomy, physics, and the emergence of the evolution theory and natural selection, which were irrefutable, led to the opposition of church views. This led eventually to the defeat of the church and its alienation from the society. Its role was restricted to one hour every Sunday or in social occasions. The church lost its role as the scientific, social, and political compass of European society. This was considered a natural step and a prerequisite to modern progress and the emergence of secular states in modern age.

Accordingly, this idea of Christianity in European ecclesiastical heritage was considered applicable to all religions in the world, although Christianity was one thing, and the church was another thing, and Christianity was one thing, and the other world religions were another thing. This sweeping generalization was conveyed and applied blindly by Islamic thinkers who were influenced by European thought, and that made them consider Islam as a religion is opposed to rationalism, like all world religions. This is not true, and the same measure does not apply here.

Reason and mind in the Islamic thought:

Islam, like other religions, acknowledges the idea of divine revelation, but it is distinctive by being liberated from the three factors led to the abyss between religion and reason, mentioned in the previous chapter. The concept of divinity in Islam did not emerge from theology or an ecclesiastical hierarchy, nor the Islamic faith was based on miracles; thus, the early Muslim religious scholars had no objections or sensitivities to accept mind and reason as sources of wisdom. It was said, ''Rulings of the mind are acceptable by theSharia (Islamic legislature), and the mind is an inner prophecy, whereas the Sharia is the outer mind''. Nearly all Muslims agree on the fact that the belief in God precedes that in prophecies, and so we believe in prophecies and sacred texts after we believe in God first. That is why one of the scholastic Islamic philosophers the first mission of the believer is to reach by reasoning to the idea of the existence of God to staunchly believe in it through the mind, and accordingly the belief in prophets and their sacred texts. Hence, Islam was firstly based on the rational outlook. [7]

Sheikh M.Abdou said, ''The belief in God's existence should not be gained from sayings of the prophet or the sacred texts, but it should be gained through the mind first, and then comes next the belief in prophets''. SheikhMaraghy said, "Imitation should not be the basis of faith, otherwise it would be a faith without reasoning and work and God would not accept it''. It is acknowledged that the mind is a prerequisite to faith, and that obligations of faith are not compulsory on mad people and children who have not attained to puberty. It is said as well that the faculty of reason is the balance of god on earth.

Ibn Taymiya wrote two books on the topic of the mind and the sacred texts, one of them titled ''The Refutation of the Claimed Contradiction between the Mind and the Sacred Texts ", and the other titled "The Agreement Statement between the Mind and the Sacred Texts ".In both books, he proves that there could be no clash between the reasoning mind and the sacred texts, and there is ample room forIjtihad (reasoning and interpretive judgment) for other issues that would be new in life.

All Islamic doctrines place the mind in high status; especially theZaydi doctrine set by imamZayd Ibn Ali (Zayn El-Abdeen )Ibn Al-HusseinIbn AliIbn AbuTalib . This doctrine was misinterpreted by Shiite Muslims and shunned accordingly by Sunnite Muslims, although it was worthy of appreciation.

Zaydi doctrine offers the resolved issue of the reasoning mind as expressed in the Holy Quran. This is mentioned in the manuscript in the Egyptian Book House titled ''Gems of Chapters on the Origins ofZaydi Doctrine'' bySarim Al-Deen El-Wazir :

"Ijtihad is based on the rational, reasoning mind, and then the unanimous view of scholars, then what is known from the sacred texts and theSunna , then what is generally accepted socially, then the general understanding and measurement of subject matters, and lastly the original innocence in things …"

ImamAbou Zahra refutes and dispels in his book titled " ImamZayd " any doubts concerning the abovementioned statement, by saying:

"…We conclude that the reasoning mind and its decisive rational judgment are placed in the first rank above other sources ofIjtihad , even theSunna and the Holy Quran. This would seem strange, but we shall explain it as follows.

The reasoning mind is placed above all as through it we reach the knowledge of God's existence, the prophecy of Muhammad, and the divine origin of the Holy Quran. Logically, this precedes using theSunna and the Holy Quran inIjtihad , as the reasoning mind proves their correctness.

We resort to the reasoning mind in IslamicSharia if theSharia has no answers to the subject matter in question. The reasoning, rational mind comes primarily before the sacred texts in three aspects.

Firstly, the determined and resolved matter of the reasoning mind which cannot be refuted, and that the judgment of the mind to legalize or ban something is something relative and not absolute.

Secondly, the reasoning mind is the basis of the Islamic discourse of facts like the belief in God His prophet, His book, and His miracles. The fact that the mind is a prerequisite to holding believers responsible for their actions comes after theSharia . We conclude then that the judgment of the mind is not contradictory to what is in the sacred texts. For example, if the mind considers something as corrupt, without a text to legalize or ban it, then this thing is banned, as God does not like corruption for His believers. If the mind considers something as useful without a text to legalize or ban it, then this thing is legalized as long as it is not corrupt, because God is merciful to His believers.

Thirdly, the precedence of the reasoning mind is the basis of the generalSharia , but the mind comes later to theSharia in matters legalized or banned clearly and specifically in theSharia …"

The same author refutes the doubts cast on the precedence of unanimous view over theSunna and the Holy Quran, saying:

"…Sarim Al-Deen El-Wazir mentions in his book that the unanimous view was taken in the early era of Islam by the prophet Muhammad and his companions and followers. For example, all views agree unanimously on facts like: there are five prayers daily, on the number of prostrations (Raak'at ) in each prayer, on the manner of prayer set by Prophet Muhammad, on fasting, alms ( Zakat ), pilgrimage…etc. There is noIjtihad in such matters as they are taken for granted and they could not be opposed, and they are explained plainly in the Holy Quran andSunna .

Taking these facts for granted, and in a place of precedence overIjtihad in the Holy Quran andSunna , does not mean that the unanimous view is placed in precedence over the Holy Quran andSunna . Prophet Muhammad advised us to use the mind and the unanimous view to judge things not mentioned in the Holy Quran andSunna "[8]

The author of the book titled ''Zaydi Doctrine " mentions in his talk about El-Kasim El-Rasi that " This doctrine was the first one to place the reasoning mind in precedence to the Holy Quran and the prophet Muhammad as both are known and acknowledged first through the mind, and both cannot be used to reach the mind. Hence, the mind is the main source forFiqh inZaydi doctrine, and although the rational tendency was first known in the Mo'tazala doctrine, but it does not place the mind in such high esteem as the case withZaydi doctrine. TheZaydi doctrine says that even the truth of Prophet Muhammad is known by the mind as it discerns truth from falsehoods, and hence the mind is precedent to Prophet Muhammad, theSunna and the Holy Quran. Mo'tazala and Asha'era doctrines, and Al-Razi who followed the latter doctrine, say that the reasoning mind is precedent to the sacred texts, whereas the main doctrines like Al-Hanifiya or Al -Shafeiya did not place the mind as a source for legislation precedent to the Holy Quran …" [9]

El-Kasim El-Rasi said in his description of the reasoning mind, ''…the mind is a safe haven for thoughts and the best friend to keep secrets and ideas "

Despite the fact that theZaydi doctrine was plain and clear in stating and acknowledging the fact of the mind's precedence over the sacred texts, even the Holy Quran itself, yet the essence of other Islamic doctrines does not differ much from this fact. This appeared in tackling the case of the purported contradiction between the mind and the sacred texts, and the contemporary writer sheikh M.Soad Galal cited El-Razi and said:

"…the problem is when the judgment of the mind would contradict the sacred text of the Holy Quran… "

El-Razi mentions that in the interpretation of the Holy Quran, one would use the mind, like in the verse: ''…when he came to the setting of the sun, it appeared to him that it was setting in a dark turbid sea… '' (86:18) which means the beholder has seen this scene literally. El-Razi says that the mind is the origin and theSharia is the branch of it, and if we believed in the vice-versa, then this is not true. It is through the rational mind that we prove the existence and oneness of God, and His attributes like liveliness, omniscience, omnipotence, will…etc. and His ability to send messengers to people. Hence, evenSharia is based on the reasoning mind and not the vice-versa, which is wrong.

The contemporary writer sheikh M.Soad Galal explains that the vice versa is not true as we cannot prove the correctness of the Holy Quran by the existence of God or the vice versa, as this is false logic. The existence of God and the correctness of the Holy Quran are both proven solely by the mind, not by anything in theSharia ; hence, theSharia itself can be true according to the mind as well.[10]

Islamic thought and philosophy:

It is a shame that that many Islamic thinkers made the wrong use of the encouragement of Islam to scientific thought in the only field that Islam bans considering; i.e., the attributes of God and the nature of His Being. The human mind cannot conceive this field, yet some Islamic thinkers specified a new branch of philosophy to deal with such knowledge, which is called the knowledge ofKalam (similar to Greek scholasticism: rational reexamination of faith based on Greek philosophical ideas). People ofKalam made use of the Aristotelian system of logic of premises, semantic meanings, patterns, definitions, limits, proofs, assessment, refutations…etc. to reexamineFiqh .[11]

In any simple book of the origins ofFiqh , we read that a thing cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of another thing, like the example of cleanliness before performing prayers, as performing ablution is not enough to perform prayers…etc.

TheSalafist thought imbued the Kalam philosophy and the logical and philosophical methods of thinking infiltrated in the thought of mostSalafist thinkers like, Averroes, Avicenna…etc.

Al-Ash'ari himself tried to conciliate the sacred text and rationalism and Kalam philosophy. One writer traces the infiltration ofKalam philosophy in the Islamic thought, and says:

"…After Al-Ash'ari , there was the judgeAbou Bakr El-Baklani , who wrote books like The Philosophical Premises , Gems of Wisdom , on the Kalam philosophy of Al-Ash'ari .Later on, there was El-Niasabouri (420 -478 A.H) who studied monotheism, Fiqh , and logic for 30 years and wrote books like The Ultimate End which is preserved as a manuscript in the Egyptian Book House, and El-Shamel (The Comprehensive) and its synopsis titled Book of Guidance .El-Niasabouri made use of theSalafist thought as well as Greek logic in his work tackling Kalam philosophy of Al-Ash'ari .Later on, there was his disciple, imam Al-Ghazali , the most important well-known Islamic philosopher, who died in 505 A.D. his contribution to the thought of Al-Ash'ari was to refute other philosophers who were being refuted before him by Al-Mo'tazala solely. Imam El-Khatib followed the steps of imam El-Ghazali in refuting philosophers and Al-Mo'tazala by the philosophy of Al-Ash'ari . Later on, the same philosophy and methods were used by Al-Baydawy whose book was titled Al-Tawale ' who combined other philosophies withKalam philosophy. Some of those who followed the footsteps of Al-Baydawy were non-Arab scholars and philosophers like Al-Taftazani and Al-Eigy ''.[12]

We can say that the experience of the Islamic thought in this field was unsuccessful, and holding solely to the sacred texts at the time was preferable to the reasoning mind. That was because Muslim philosophers studied the Greek philosophy to use it to prove the existence of God and His attributes. They used it to discuss many presuppositions and postulates. Later on, they tried to reconcile philosophy and faith, and they considered that wisdom brought religion and religion complements wisdom. Al-Safa brothers considered thatSharia was sullied by ignorant imposters and some aberrant ideas that should be purged by philosophy, as said by El-Sagastany . Islamic thought did not gain benefit by a book by Al-Faraby titled '' Two views of the Two Sages " and says in it, '' God saved reasonable and rational people via these two sages, Plato and Aristotle, with their clear logic to refute falsehoods and prove things with irrefutable evidence, and their books have many principles on nature and questions of divinity… " He did not even mention Islam and the message of Prophet Muhammad and the guidance of the Holy Quran and its proofs of faith that keep faith ingrained in the mind more that philosophical doctrine could keep.

This view of Al-Faraby and other philosophers who imitated him is rue concerning the Greek society, where there were no Quran or prophecy, and philosophers were quasi-prophets. This cannot apply in Islam after Prophet Muhammad and the Holy Quran, which presents new method and proofs suitable to humanity in all ages. Yet, the non-Arab origin of these Muslim scholars and philosophers led them to embrace the Aristotelian logic, as theQuranic logic was foreign to them. Their old sediments of foreign (non-Arab) thought led them to prefer the logic and wisdom of 'the two sages' to the divine wisdom of the Holy Quran. Yet, we might excuse them to a certain extent as they were suffocated by the dominance of traditional religious scholars in the Islamic thought at the time, which stifled any innovations.

Dr. M. El-Behy mentions the interpretation of Avicenna of the followingQuranic verse: "God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His light is, as it were, that of a niche containing a lamp; the lamp is enclosed in glass, the glass is shining like a radiant star: a lamp lit from a blessed tree - an olive tree that is neither of the east nor of the west – the oil whereof is so bright that it would well-nigh give light of itself even though fire had not touched it: light upon light! God guides unto His light him that wills to be guided, and to this end God propounds parables unto men since God alone has full knowledge of all things "(35:24) and this interpretation was as follows:

"…light is either self-producing or taken from elsewhere and in both cases it leads to goodness. Avicenna says that 'the heavens and the earth' means the totality and the 'niche' means the material mind or the brain that contains the light of thought. The' lamp' means for him the method to transmit thought, and the 'blessed tree' is the power of thought. The' fire' for him means the Omnipotent Mind behind the world we see, this is the OmnipresentBeing written about by Plato ... " [13]

It is understood that this strange interpretation is far from the intended meaning of thisQuranic verse. The picture drawn by the Holy Quran is absorbed by the soul and has the right effect without this bizarre, alien interpretation of Avicenna who was taught philosophies of Aristotle and Plato. This kind of 'interpretations' is in fact a way of adding convoluted and complicated meaning of theQuranic text, which in itself simple and persuasive, with a certain impact of its intonation and shades of semantic levels of meanings.

For example, this is a quotation from the Aristotelian book titled

''Physical Nature " translated by Islamic philosophers:

"…the existent matter signifies something that exists, and shows its existence, as the matter either exists or do not exist, if the matter is white, that does not mean that the thing exists, nor the thing exists because it was nonexistent before, thus the white matter does not signify either existence or nonexistence, then the existent matter signifies many things "(!!)

This passage, said the author[14] is an effort wasted in utter nonsense, and the Islamic nation was harmed when some of its scholars abandoned the Holy Quran with its clear text and message and the easySunna to waste their time in interpreting the previous Aristotelian passage in the following paragraph:

''…the existent matter can signify many existing things, which are primarily existent as an essential fact, and this is the essence of the true nature of things. Yet if the existent matter is something not essential but accidental, it would not signify lack of existence and it has to signify the essence of itself '' (!!)[15]

Moreover, these philosophers added gratuitously in the field of IslamicFiqh many problems of other faiths and religions, which did not exist in Islam overlook by it. These problems were central to their thought and treatises, which tarnished the lucidity and clarity of Islamic thought that depended on its easy way that reached every natural disposition and mental faculty.

At the end of his book titledThe Divine Side of the Islamic Thought , Dr. M. El-Behy shows the tragedy of the Muslim thinkers who wanted to use the Greek philosophy to get a proof of God's existence:

"Muslim philosophers who roamed the East came with the deduction of the existence of God via the existence of the universe itself and the real world in addition to the evidence cited by religion itself, because of their acceptance of the Greek concept of existence. This was not done properly as they tried to conciliate Islam and philosophy in their rational endeavor and they adopted the same problematic issues inherent in the Greek thought, especially in the divine attributes of God mentioned in the Holy Quran and His divine knowledge of His realm.

Their philosophy could not be the basis of any religious guidance as it is not compatible with the thought and nature of religion. Their philosophy could not be the basis of a rational thought due to many vague, abstract, and convoluted ideas that were the result of merging many doctrines of philosophical thought.

If the Muslim philosophers knew the real value of the Greek philosophical thought and that it had been merged with poetry, legends and imagination, they would have preferred to formulate their own logic.

If they knew the result of their acceptance of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle in their interpretations of faith itself as a concept, they would have acknowledged that the Holy Quran is the only divine way to the hearts of the believers and the minds of the elite thinkers among people "[16]

If these genius minds focused its research on natural sciences likeIbn Al-Haytham , Al-Bayroni , and Al-Khawarizmi …etc. Baghdad, the capital of Abbasid Caliphate, would have accomplished what Europe had reached in the renaissance era and human knowledge would have gained ten centuries of science and gained the guidance and teachings of Islam as well. If theMo'tazala group who discussed the idea of God's divine justice discussed it about rulers or themselves, when they reached the throne and the rule, political degeneration would have been prevented and the methods of dialogue would have gained a model of argument to reach the true opinion without concerning their own views.

The futile discussion of the divine attributes of God brought nothing but struggle, chasm and division in the Islamic thought. These fruitless arguments did not benefit any true believers from ordinary people who believed in the Holy Quran like the companions of the prophet and they did not resort to mere philosophical questioning because the desired meaning had reached their hearts and filled it with faith and certitude. Other thoughts apart from this assurance and certitude would be aimless curious chattering with harmful impact. We agree in this respect with those who refused to tackle such novel issues like the divine attributes of God.Ibn Al-Jawzy says in his book titled "The Favor of Ancient Religious Scholars on the Contemporary Ones " (page 17):

"Weshould refuse to discuss and tackle novel issues like those tackled by the Mo'tazala thinkers, like the divine attributes of God and His Being in a rational method. That was more harmful than tackling the issues of fate, which is the action done by God toward people, whereas tackling His attributes is to discuss HisBeing and nature… ".

***

The reaction to the experience of Islamic thought with Greek philosophy and the ensuing futile, harmful, and even absurd arguments ofMo'tazala thinkers is the movement of Sufism as was done, for instance, by Al-Ghazaly , and the other reaction was to resort toSunna especiallyHadith . Both Sufism andSunna did not encourage rational minds in particular and hence the cultural climate that caused the tragedy of the sacred texts (i.e.Hadith ) that were triumphant over the rational mind for centuries. This tragedy is tackled in the following paragraphs.

Between the texts ofHadith and the sources:

TheHadith was first haven for the Islamic thought after the futility of its experience with philosophy was apparent. This is symbolically represented by the victory of AhmedIbn Hanbal over the group ofMo'tazala thinkers.Hadith is the most sacred texts and traditions that passed to us, after the Holy Quran of course, but the ancient scholars were more concerned with the source and narrators ofHadith and not the actual phrasing of the text ofHadith . Collectors ofHadiths acknowledged that the exactness of the source and narrators ofHadith does not necessarily mean accepting a faulty phrasing of the text of aHadith , and that faulty phrasing of the text of aHadith means it is inserted to realSunna . Yet, they practically focused on the source and narrators ofHadiths , regardless of its phrasing, even of this phrasing contradicted the rational mind. All the branches of the science ofHadiths revolve around the source and narrators ofHadiths ; their names, surnames, traits, characters...etc. as the branch of narrators. Another branch is the source of narration ofHadiths : their interpretation, phrasing, kinds, rulings, and narrators and their conditions.

We have to acknowledge that generations of ancient scholars did their best to present to usSunna andHadiths with the least amount faults and interpolations possible as they tried to verify the truth as much as they could. We cannot mention all their many methods in doing so in the limited scope of this book, but generally, their efforts revolved only around the source and narrators ofHadiths and not the meaning and phrasing of the texts ofHadiths . We cite the following example to prove this idea; here are their conditions and stipulations to accept aHadith and its guidance and judge it as a true one:

The continuity of the sources and narrators is necessary in order to excludeHadiths whose sources and chain of narrators are incomplete or doubted.

1- The narrators are not liars, cheaters, or with bad characters, as they should be truthful, pious and with good manners.

2- The narrators are regulators of sources of Hadiths .

3- The narrators are not of aberrant disposition; otherwise, one would doubt their words.

4- The words of the narrators are free of apparent elements of doubt, e.g. lack of the right sequence of narrators that is verifiable.

In sum, the trueHadith for ancient religious scholars must apply the five following conditions:

TheHadith narrators are truthful and righteous.

1- They are regulators of sources from the first to the last narrator in the sequence of narration.

2- The sequence of narration is true and verifiable.

3- The sequence of narrators is not aberrant

The sequence of narration is not doubted or faulty.[17]

Hence, the ancient scholars concerned themselves with verifying the sequence of narrators and they were not concerned if the phrasing of the text of aHadith is contrary to the rational mind. They overlooked many principles that could be the reason for not accepting a Hadith with proper justification. Their focus on the sequence of narrators and not on the text itself of Hadiths that might sometimes go against the rational mind reached a level of denying the sanctity and holiness of the Quran and the prophet. Some ancient scholars accepted a false Hadith claiming that a Jew had once bewitched the prophet, made him once recite the Quran in a faulty way, and made him inserted a phrase after a certain verse.

That they acknowledged the truthfulness of such faulty, unacceptable narrative is a proof of the dominance of the importance of narrators' sequence over the text itself and its meaning and phrasing. Even the sequence of narrators of this story is very weak and its sources are doubted.

Once the sources and narrators are cast in doubt, we cannot accept the story for a realHadith . We must apply rational principles of thought as criteria to judge aHadith to know it is true or false.

In addition to accepting weak sequence of narrators, strange tales as trueHadiths , and not judging critically and rationally their phrasing, some ancient scholars had presented to us thousands of strangeHadiths that are doubted and they cover endless ordinary, mundane topics and fields.

Later generations of religious scholars classified theseHadiths , as they tackled endless situations, in four main categories of action: legal, banned, unpleasant, and avoidable. Later on, with the passage of time, these strange, doubted Hadiths became part of the Sharia that had to be followed blindly. Muslims were obligated to imitated and follow the ancient scholars even if the required actions were outside the framework of worship and true Sharia . The mindset of contemporary Muslims became blind following of the texts and they were forbidden to think or choose. Imitation and blind following became the general accepted policy, and the faculty of reason stopped totally and it was rusted. A contemporary Muslim became like a robot controlled by doubted texts. In fact, this is the tragedy of the contemporary Islamic thought as it is overwhelmed by imitation and blind acceptance without thinking. This goes contrary to the guidance of the Holy Quran in this respect, as it denounces the monks and clergy that people made them semi gods who would legalize and forbid. The Holy Quran denounces clearly the blind following and imitations of ancestors, and such rigid thinking does as well against the teachings of Prophet Muhammad who always preferred the benefit and goodness for his followers. Prophet Muhammad ban disliked futile questioning that lead to nothing as he said clearly in this hadith , " Leave me with what I have told you (of teachings) and ask for no more ". Yet, many narrators of Hadiths did not leave any action or word of Prophet Muhammad unless they record it for guidance and obligatory following. They missed the wisdom of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad as he encouraged people to think and consider the issues of everyday life, and said that if they would reach a good judgment they would be rewarded twice, and if their judgment turned out to be wrong, they would be rewarded once for using the reasoning faculty of mind. Blind following and imitation in everything is wrong even of the prophet as this goes against his hadith mentioned above. Hence, it is clear that God urges Muslims to think and use their mental faculty and warns them against the assumed authority of clergy and ancestors.

***

It is noteworthy that the second haven for the Islamic thought after the failure of its experience with Greek philosophy was Sufism. Sufism did not contribute anything to the rational mind. On the contrary, it had no limits and it went far unbridled in the mazes of ardent passion of the divine. It resulted in the introduction of legends and lore like the holy saints and sheikhs who performed miracles like walking on water, flying in the air to cover long distances…etc. among other superstitious, ignorant tales to deceive the masses, and the shrines of the saints, martyrs and sheikhs who were made holy. Other strange Sufism mystical beliefs are infiltrated in the sermons of some mosques. Some organized bodies and orders were formed on mystical teachings and based on blind obedience to the sheikhs of the mystical order of Sufism who were made holy. These unfamiliar practices are foreign to true Islam and Sufism harmed Islam. It used strange non-Islamic, organizational disciplines to realize ends that most of them are based on infusing blind obedience, deepening imitation, and eradicating the will, character, and reasoning of people.

***

Between imitation andIjtihad :

The conflict between the phrasing ofHadiths and verifying their sources and narrators was broadened in a general way in the conflict between imitation andIjtihad (i.e. reasoning with the mind to reach religious judgments). Imitation was predominant for ten consecutive centuries andIjtihad was strictly forbidden at the time as ancient scholars saw it brought nothing but trouble, chaos, and contradictory notions. Yet, when it comes to the matters and issues of everyday life, this cannot be bearable. There were supposed to be regulating tools like a higher council or court, but such tools were unknown at the time in the Arab, Islamic societies. Since these regulating tools were absent, scholars at the time saw it fit to banIjtihad and confine themselves to old doctrines that proved its validity with the passage of time. Non-religious, political factors, and other benefits and interests had led to the dominance of certain doctrines in certain regions.

What concerns us here is that imitation continued to thrive. Imitation was defined then as ''accepting the words of the others without asking for proofs ''. Accordingly, imitators did not resort to theSunna or to the Holy Quran, but resorted to the doctrine and ideas of their imams and sheikhs who were revered or sanctified. Imitation as a tradition was so powerful that even the only doctrine that resisted imitation – Al-Zaydi doctrine – sank to imitation by later followers and adherents. Al-Shawkani said in his book titled '' Opinions on Imitation andIjtihad '', that '' …Zaydi doctrine followers in Yemen tried to reinstituteIjtihad once more in the early days of this doctrine, but later generations brought moreZaydi zealots who glorified imitation of their imams and opposedIjtihad based on the Holy Quran andSunna and attacked violently and killed whoever do this… ". This was done even in a doctrine that at first encouragedIjtihad , let alone other doctrines that call for blind imitation and called it obedience of God.

Due to banning ofIjtihad , the reasoning faculty was abandoned and some people left the teachings of theSunna and the Holy Quran and preferred to them guidelines of their ancestors and old sheikhs. That was why Muslims had degenerated in the previous eras, as they shunned the Holy Quran, the source of their might, guidance and wisdom, and resorted to imitation of their ancestors and chose to follow words of clergy and those who sought worldly gains in the name of religion.

***

It is noteworthy to say that this phenomenon of degeneration of religious thought is not confined to Islam, but we find it in all ancient religions. This even began before heavenly religions when the human mind was not mature enough, but the roots and sediments of this phenomenon are so deep that it became an integral part in the course of history. Heavenly religions cam to deliver people from these distortions and deviances, yet the roots and sediments of this phenomenon in some eras were dominant or at least were present largely in heavenly religions. This impact applies to the three celestial monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. We might see it more in Catholicism than in Protestantism, but this effect is present, anyway. What lessened the harmful influence in Europe was that people there did not take Christianity seriously and its influence – both original and harmful – was weak. As for Islam, Muslims see it as the main constituent of their lives and they would never let go of it. Within this concept, initially, the true beneficial impact of Islam was present, and the harmful effect mentioned above was more powerful. In the Holy Quran we read, "…the only true religion in the sight of God is self-surrender unto Him… "(19:3) which means that God wants Islam to be a new, unique model to liberate people from harmful thoughts that sometimes cling to religions with the passage of time. Yet, Muslims reversed thisQuranic verse and made Islam as the only religion and not in the sense of the word'Islam' i.e. self-surrender to God. Hence, Islamic teachings were liable to many suppositious, ignorant ideas and sediments linked to all previous religions before Islam liberated people.

Although Islam, more than any other religions, opposed paganism, superstition, supernatural miracles and imitation, yet the idea of imitation of ancestors prevailed for ages and Muslimswith the passage of time deteriorated like followers of other religions. It was required that every century a great enlightened religious scholar would emerge to renew faith to Muslims, with varying degrees of success according to the surroundings and circumstances.

Domains of specialization:

The abovementioned facts do not intend to convey the idea that the human mind solely is the judging tool in the field of religion. Religion has a divine source of revelation, i.e. God. Revelation is an issue that cannot be proven, or even refuted, by the rational mind. This is because the existence of God is a rational self-evident truth acceptable to the mind, as God is the source of life, wisdom, rationality, and the end to which we reach finally. These divine gifts are the components of the human mind, created by God, and hence it is little wonder that revelation would reach people by God. This revelation does not contradict the components of the mind nor God's attributes. In fact, this makes the mind the link between God and people via the means of revelation. Yet, God is Unseen Himself by any human being, as the Holy Quran says, ''No human vision can encompass Him… '' (103:6), and another fact is that the human mind, due to its limitations, cannot fathom some attributes of God. We only know some of these attributes via the divine revelation, and this does not contradict the mind, but in fact agrees to its ways. Philosophy tried to discuss the nature and Being of God and His attributes were just mere outlines that led to nothing at the end and could not surpass certain limits and could not reach the unseen, unknown realm of life after death. Hence, divine revelation came to complete this aspect lacking in the human mind.

The limitations of the mind to reach facts given by the divine revelation do not mean blind acceptance of what contradicts its rational principles that could not be abandoned. Hence, we conclude that the divine revelation cannot possibly be things that contradict the human mind. We have said earlier that the presupposition that the revelation is by necessity contradictory to the mind is a wrong notion. Islamic revelation agrees to the rational mind and its principles. The proof of this is that the Islamic idea of divinity is like the notion of divinity in the thought of Descartes and other European thinkers and philosophers whotired to discover the attributes of God.

The mind does not reject an issue just because there is no rational proof to it as long as it is not contradictory to the mind. Likewise, issues like the existence of God, Resurrection, Reckoning…etc do not contradict the principles of the mind. On the contrary, these issues agree with the rational preference of existence to nonexistence, justice to injustice. Yet, the Afterlife, Paradise and Hell are issues that contradict the sensory material outlook of the rationalist philosophers. Yet, the fact that these notions are not materially verifiable doesno prove they are nonexistent. If immaterial, strange ideas can be refuted easily, people might not have believed, 200 years ago, that there could be airplanes, radios, cellular phones…etc. and they would accuseany one who would predict these invention of being insane and irrational. Likewise, concepts like the Afterlife, Judgment Day, Paradise and Hell…etc. should not be tackled rationally but accepted as they are, following the agnostic argument. Rationalist should acknowledge the fact that religion and divine revelation show to them aspects that can never be reached by the limitations of the human mind, and thus rationalism could go hand in hand with revelation to reach many aspects of the truth.

Rationalism cannot reject religion just because it cannot be proved by its tools. Likewise, religion should not deny rationalism by the faulty notion that it contradicts the mind and the religious knowledge. Rationalism was an archenemy of Christianity because it presented a view of creation opposite to what we find in the book of Genesis. If religions contain what might contradict rational thought and the principles of the mind, then this We should not prevent religion from tackling issue like natural, social and psychological phenomena, as long as this will not contradict the principles of the mind. That is because religion might reach to aspects unreachable by science. This does not mean that religion would replace science but it will reinforce it, and by necessity would not supplant rationalism. The best proof of this is manyQuranic verses that have references to natural, social and psychological phenomena that may open new vistas for scientists to explore.

It is true that the Holy Quran says God has created the Earth in six days, but the Holy Quran mentions as well that days of God in His high realm above are different from days of people on earth, as some of His days might count 1000 or even 50000 years as mentioned in the Holy Quran. Other numbers and other notions like the Throne of God are mentioned in the Holy Quran to test the fickle believers in the early days of Islam and to be symbols to convey meanings in an understandable manner to people. The narrative verse style of the Holy Quran is different from the narrative prose style of the Old Testament, which leaves no room for interpretation, unlike the case in the poetic style of the Holy Quran that allows room for different interpretations. This applied to God's attributes and actions mentioned in the Holy Quran. Fear of censure will not make us overlook this fact or never to mention it.

Anyhow, the domain of religion differs from the domain of science, and they should not mingle except on rare occasions or exceptions.

God's attribute and the Afterlife are domains of religion, and science however advanced cannot reach them, to verify or refute them, as science cannot investigate the supernatural realm or explore what is beyond the universe.

As for the many branches of science, such as mathematics, geometry, physics…etc. they are the domains of the mind to explore and present to us the latest aspects of the materialistic advancement.

This fundamental separate specialization of domains is based on the facthat the source of religious thought is both the wisdom of the mind and the wisdom of the heart, whereas the source of the scientific thought is solely the mind. Thus, we see the distinctive nature of each of them in their domains and tools by which each of them reach results. This point concerning the wisdom of the heart is tacked in details in the next chapter.

Thus remains two points to mention:

Firstly, Islam should incorporate human branches of knowledge in its domain. For instance, economy, sociology, and politics are scientific fields, but could serve religious aims and values to benefit people, as the neutral, abstract, and scientific outlook might not necessarily be beneficial to all people. The Islamic ideals like justice, benevolence, goodness…etc. are what distinguishes the Islamic rationalism from abstract rationalism. This point is tackled in the second part of this book.

Secondly, there is a third broad domain apart from the religious and scientific ones, which is the domain of arts and literature. It is nearer to the domain of religion that the domain of science is to religion, because one of its sources is the heart, and hence the common source between this domain and religion. Yet, each of them has a different nature, as art is without divine revelation and it is one hundred percent human. Hence, art can go unbridled without control in the realm of the imagination, unlike religion, which is supported by the divine source. As religion should not be a kind of art, arts should not be turned into a religion.