↑[1] . As Abu Bakr al-Jassas (d. 370 AH) has said: “Among the reasons for rejecting ahad reports is their contradiction with the necessities of the rulings of the intellect; because the intellect serves as proof for Allah Almighty, and it is not permissible to alter what it indicates or necessitates. Any report that a rational proof contradicts with it is invalid and unacceptable, and the rational proof remains in force and valid, unless the report is susceptible to an interpretation that the rulings of the intellect do not contradict with it, in which case it is interpreted accordingly.” (Al-Fusul Fi al-Usul by al-Jassas, vol. 3, p. 121) Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429 AH) has said regarding the principles that the Sunnis have agreed upon: “As for ahad reports, when their chains of narrators are authentic and their texts are not impossible according to the intellect, it is obligatory to act upon them without knowledge.” (Al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq by Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, p. 312) Al-Mawardi (d. 450 AH) has said regarding ahad reports: “If their acceptability is established, acting upon what they contain is obligatory as long as the intellect does not prohibit it.” (Al-Hawi al-Kabir by al-Mawardi, vol. 16, p. 87) Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) has said: “When a reliable and trustworthy narrator narrates a report with a connected chain of narrators, it can be refuted for several reasons, one of which is that it contradicts rational necessities; thus, its falsity becomes known, since Sharia only affirms what the intellect allows. As for what contradicts the intellect, it is not affirmed.” (Al-Faqih Wa al-Mutifaqqih by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, vol. 1, p. 354) He has also said: “A wahid report is not accepted if it contradicts a ruling of the intellect.” (Al-Kifayah Fi Ilm al-Riwayah by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, p. 432) Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) has said: “Whatever the intellect indicates in favor of a particular side, there is no room for contradiction in it; because rational reasons cannot be abrogated or self-contradicted. Therefore, if there is textual evidence that goes against the intellect, either it is not mutawatir, so it is known to be unauthentic, or it is mutawatir, in which case it must be interpreted in a way that does not contradict the intellect. It is impossible for a mutawatir text to contradict rational reasons without the possibility of error or interpretation; because rational reasons do not admit of abrogation and falsity.” (Al-Mustasfa by al-Ghazali, p. 252) Abu al-Khattab al-Kalwadhani (d. 510 AH) has said regarding what is used to refute a report: “Among them is that it contradicts what the intellect requires. Whenever a report comes in this manner and we cannot interpret it except through a far-fetched and strained interpretation, it is not permissible for us to judge that the Prophet ﷺ said it; because if strained interpretation were permissible alongside contradiction, then contradiction in speech would be invalidated. Unless we say that the Prophet ﷺ narrated it from a people in a manner of repudiation and denial against them, and he mentioned something additional that was hidden from the narrator, which would take the report out of the realm of contradiction. Only those reports that reason does not find contradictory are accepted.” (Al-Tamhid Fi Usul al-Fiqh by al-Kalwadhani, vol. 3, p. 147) Abu al-Wafa’ ibn Aqil (d. 513 AH) has said: “The evidence of the intellect specifies the evidence of the Book and the reports.” (Al-Wadih Fi Usul al-Fiqh by Abu al-Wafa’ ibn Aqil, vol. 3, p. 393) Al-Samarqandi (d. 539 AH) has said regarding the conditions of a wahid report: “Among them is that it should align with rational evidence; thus, if it contradicts (the intellect), it is not accepted, such as the reports that have been transmitted regarding tashbih (comparing Allah to created beings) and similar matters; because the intellect is one of the proofs of Allah Almighty, and He is Wise and All-Knowing; therefore, it is not permissible for His proofs to contradict each other. And auditory evidence may involve metaphor, implication, and allusion, and the like; thus, it is obligatory to interpret the reports in accordance with the intellect.” (Mizan al-Usul Fi Nata’ij al-Uqul by al-Samarkandi, vol. 1, p. 433)

↑[2] . The fanatics devoted to ibn Taymiyyah may become upset by this statement and deny it, though it is the truth. His views on the attributes of Allah Almighty and his works written in refutation of the rationalists bear witness to this, such as a book titled Naqd al-Mantiq—whose title translates as “Refutation of Logic” and is sufficient to indicate its content—and another book he titled Dar’ Ta‘arud al-Aql Wa al-Naql, in which he rejected many of the clear rational principles. For example, in this book, he rejected the view that when Aql (intellect) and Naql (revelation and transmitted reports) come into conflict, Aql must be given precedence, and that Naql should then either be interpreted or left to divine knowledge—and he called this “al-Qanun al-Kulli Li al-Tawfiq Inda al-Mubtadi‘ah,” meaning the universal principle of reconciliation among the innovators (vol. 1, p. 3); and he rejected the view that Aql is the foundation of Naql (vol. 1, p. 87), and that Naql is valid only as long as it does not contradict Aql (vol. 1, p. 177); and he claimed that the proof of Aql is conditional upon its not opposing the Sharia, since Aql is weak and incapable (vol. 1, p. 187); that Aql cannot serve as an independent proof in the details of divine matters and the Last Day (vol. 1, p. 187); that the revealed matters which are said to be contradicted by Aql are known necessarily from the religion (vol. 1, p. 195); and that the rational arguments used to oppose the religious proofs are invalid and self-contradictory (vol. 1, p. 280). He also stated in some of his other books that all rational arguments used as evidence to oppose the texts of the Prophets are invalid (al-Jawab al-Sahih Li Man Baddala Din al-Masih by ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 5, p. 129); that it is obligatory to affirm the attributes established by Naql and not by Aql, and that one who denies what is known to be true by Aql alone is not punished (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa by ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 3, p. 328); and that those who have built the foundations of their religion on what they call rational and have subordinated the Quran to it are among the greatest disputers regarding Allah’s signs without any proof given to them (al-Istiqamah by ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 1, p. 23). There are other statements as well that reveal the intensity of his hostility toward intellect, the intellectual person, and what is affirmed by intellect.

↑[3] . This refers to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, who raised the banner of Salafism and fought Muslims under it with the support of oppressors until he imposed it upon them. He had the greatest influence on the Salafis after ibn Taymiyyah, to the point that they were named after him and called “Wahhabis.” Unlike ibn Taymiyyah, this influence was not due to his knowledge or writings—since he did not possess great knowledge or many books—but through the military power and wealth of the house of Saud. His statement that the people of Aql are none but the followers of Naql serves as sufficient proof of his hostility toward intellect (Tafsir Ayat Min al-Quran al-Karim by ibn Abd al-Wahhab, p. 325).

↑[4] . Many scholars have rejected this view of theirs. For example, ibn Furak (d. 406 AH) said: “A solitary report is accepted only in matters where the method is to act upon the outward meaning, without requiring certainty about the inner meaning. Certainty cannot be attained from such reports; and permitting these descriptions (stated in them) as attributes of Allah, Exalted and Majestic, through this method is incorrect.” (Mushkil al-Hadith Wa Bayanah by ibn Furak, p. 367), and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) said: “A solitary report is not accepted in any matter of religion in which the legally accountable (mukallaf) are required to have knowledge and certainty. This is because when it is not known whether the report truly came from the Prophet (SAW), one is even further from having knowledge of its content.” (al-Kifayah Fi Ilm al-Riwayah by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, p. 432), and Abu al-Ma‘ali al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH) said: “Know—may Allah grant you success—that in every matter in which knowledge is sought, solitary reports are not accepted, since they do not yield (knowledge). From this, it follows that a solitary report is not accepted in rational matters, in the fundamentals of creed, or in anything in which knowledge is required.” (al-Talkhis Fi Usul al-Fiqh by al-Juwayni, vol. 2, p. 430), and al-Samarqandi (d. 539 AH) said regarding the conditions for accepting a solitary report: “Among them is that the report should pertain to practical matters. As for when it pertains to matters of belief—which are among the issues of Kalam (Islamic theology)—it is not authoritative, since it yields conjecture, not certain knowledge; therefore, it cannot be authoritative in matters that are based on certain knowledge.” (Mizan al-Usul Fi Nata’ij al-Uqul by al-Samarqandi, vol. 1, p. 434), and al-Ala’ al-Asmandi (d. 552 AH) said: “It is not permissible to accept a solitary report in matters of belief; because when a single person reports that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say, ‘Indeed, Allah Almighty possesses such-and-such an attribute,’ we do not know that Allah Almighty truly possesses that attribute, since we have no knowledge of its proof. Thus, if we were to hold such a belief, we could not be sure that this belief is not based on ignorance and is not abhorrent; and it would be abhorrent to proceed with such a belief while we cannot be sure that it is not based on ignorance.” (Badhl al-Nazar Fi al-Usul by al-Ala’ al-Asmandi, p. 406).

↑[5] . This is what they attribute to the majority of the Ahl al-Hadith and the Ahl al-Zahir (those who adhered only to the apparent meanings of the Quran and the Sunnah). For example, Ahmad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Shinqiti states in Khabar al-Wahid Wa Hujiyyatuh (p. 146): “In one of the two narrations from him, Ahmad held that the solitary report of a just individual provides certainty if it is authentic. A group of his companions preferred this, and it is also the view of the majority of the Ahl al-Zahir and the majority of the Ahl al-Hadith.” He then states (p. 152): “Their proof for this is that if such a report did not provide knowledge, it would not be permissible to follow it, due to Allah Almighty’s prohibition against following conjecture.” This is how Allah leads astray those who do not use the intellect! Moreover, what they attribute to Ahmad is not established as his view, for he was wiser than that; as judge Abu Ya‘la al-Hanbali (d. 458 AH) said: “I have seen in the book Ma‘ani al-Hadith, compiled by Abu Bakr al-Athram: Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: ‘When a hadith comes from the Prophet (SAW) with an authentic chain of narrators that contains a ruling or an obligation, I act according to that ruling or obligation and obey Allah Almighty through it. But I do not testify that the Prophet (SAWW) said that.’ Thus, he explicitly stated that he did not attain certainty from it.” (al-Uddah Fi Usul al-Fiqh by Abu Ya‘la, vol. 3, p. 898), and Abu al-Wafa’ ibn Aqil al-Hanbali (d. 513 AH) said: “A solitary report does not provide knowledge—neither self-evident (Daruri) nor acquired (Muktasab)—according to the authentic of the two narrations from our companion.” (al-Wadih Fi Usul al-Fiqh by Abu al-Wafa’ ibn Aqil, vol. 4, p. 403). Moreover, it is not established as the view of the majority of the Ahl al-Hadith, and there are reports to the contrary from them. For example, al-Mardawi al-Hanbali (d. 885 AH) said: “Ahmad and the majority (said): ‘The solitary report of a just individual provides only conjecture.’ This is the authentic view of Ahmad and most of his companions, as well as the majority of other scholars, due to the possibility of oversight, error, or the like. Ahmad explicitly stated this in a narration from al-Athram, and he acted upon it but did not testify that the Prophet (SAW) said it.” (al-Tahbir Sharh al-Tahrir by al-Mardawi, vol. 4, p. 1808), and al-Zarkashi (d. 794 AH) said: “I have seen the statement of al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi in the book Fahm al-Sunan, in which he reported from the majority of the scholars of hadith and the people of opinion (al-Ra’y) and jurisprudence (al-Fiqh) that it does not provide knowledge. He then said: ‘And the minority of them said: It provides knowledge.’” (al-Bahr al-Muhit Fi Usul al-Fiqh by al-Zarkashi, vol. 6, p. 135).

↑[6] . This is explicitly stated by ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) in al-Tamhid (vol. 1, p. 7), where he said, after explaining that a solitary report does not provide knowledge: “This is the view of al-Shafi‘i and the majority of the people of jurisprudence and reasoning. According to their view, only that which is definitively established from Allah and leaves no room for excuse provides knowledge, and there is no disagreement on this.” Al-Sam‘ani (d. 489 AH) likewise said in Qawati‘ al-Adillah (vol. 1, p. 333): “The majority of jurists and theologians held that it—meaning a solitary report—does not provide knowledge.”

↑[7] . Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Sahih Muslim (vol. 1, p. 132): “As for one who says that (a solitary report) provides knowledge, he obstinately resists what is perceptible. How could knowledge be attained when the possibility of error, misunderstanding, lying, and other such things is always present in it?” In a similar sense, Abu al-Ma‘ali al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH) said: “The Hashwiyyah among the Hanabilah and the scribes of Hadith held that the solitary report of a just individual provides knowledge. This is a disgrace, which is obvious to anyone of sound mind. We then say to them: ‘Do you allow that the just individual you described could slip and err?’ If they say no, that would be a lie, a disgraceful act, and tearing the veil of awe, and there is no need for further explanation; but when it becomes clear that error is possible, certainty regarding its truth cannot be achieved. Moreover, this concerns a just person in the knowledge of Allah Almighty, while we cannot be certain of the uprightness of anyone; rather, it is possible that one conceals what is contrary to what one reveals.” (al-Burhan Fi Usul al-Fiqh by al-Juwayni, vol. 1, p. 231).