Reason and Revelation Between al-Razi and Ibn Taymiyya 1. The Rule:...
Abdul Rahman (TAP)@abdul_now
14 views
May 24, 2025
~5 min read
Advertisement
1
Reason and Revelation Between al-Razi and Ibn Taymiyya
1. The Rule: When Reason and Revelation Seem to Clash
Many theologians held a guiding principle:
"When a definitive rational evidence contradicts the apparent meaning of revelation, the text must be reinterpreted."
Al-Razi is among those who articulated this rule most clearly. In his works, he lays out four possible responses when a definitive rational argument seems to conflict with the apparent meaning of a scriptural text:
1) Accept both — impossible, because it implies a contradiction.
2) Reject both — not viable, as it undermines all sources of knowledge.
3) Accept revelation and reject reason — not possible, since reason is required to even understand revelation and affirm its truthfulness. To reject reason is to reject revelation itself.
4) Accept reason and reinterpret revelation — this, he argues, is the only valid path.
This became known as the qanun kulli — the “universal rule” — and it was used by many theologians to justify allegorical reinterpretations of verses dealing with God’s attributes.
2. Ibn Taymiyya’s Critique
Ibn Taymiyya’s critique hits this principle from multiple angles:
A. We Don’t Judge Based on Labels
He argues that the key question is not whether a piece of evidence is rational or scriptural, but whether it is:
▫️ Definitive in reliability (qat'i al-thubut)
▫️ Definitive in meaning (qat'i al-dalala)
So:
▫️ When two sources of evidence seem to conflict, the one that is definitive in both reliability/authenticity and meaning takes precedence — regardless of whether it is labeled "rational" or "scriptural".
▫️ If both were truly definitive, they could not contradict each other — because two definitive proofs cannot clash. If one contradicts the other, then at least one of them is not truly definitive.
This framework applies to all types of evidence — whether rational, scriptural, or otherwise.
With that established, we can now assess how it applies to both types of evidence in question: scriptural and rational.
B. Scriptural Evidence Isn’t Unclear
The Qur’an is agreed upon by all Muslims to be definitive in reliability/authenticity.
When it comes to meaning, Ibn Taymiyya says that the verses about God’s attributes are also definitive in meaning because of how they are worded in Arabic.
Take, for example:
▫️ “God spoke to Moses…”
▫️ “What I created with My own hands…”
These verses use direct attribution — one of the clearest and most unmistakable grammatical constructions in the Arabic language.
In Arabic, when a quality or action is being assigned to a subject, this is the most unambiguous way to do it. If these aren’t clear, then nothing in Arabic is.
So the verses of attributes are:
▫️ Definitive in reliability — the Qur’an is mutawatir and agreed upon.
▫️ Definitive in meaning — their phrasing is direct and unequivocal, understood by fluent Arabs without external interpretive tools.
What follows from this is that any argument that contradicts these verses cannot itself be definitive. Because if it were, that would mean two definitive pieces of evidence are in conflict — which is impossible.
If someone claims these phrases are unclear, let them show us a clearer way to assign a quality to a subject in the Arabic language — they won’t find one.
So, these are not obscure phrases needing philosophical decoding centuries later.
C. What Counts as a Definitive Rational Proof?
When it comes to rational evidence,Ibn Taymiyya argues that for something to be considered a definitive rational proof, it must meet at least one of the following standards:
1. It’s agreed upon by all rational people.
This is the real standard — because if something is truly definitive in a rational sense, and is strong enough to override the apparent meaning of what God revealed about Himself, then all sound minds should be able to grasp it. Otherwise, revelation becomes misleading, as it would appear to affirm something about a foundational matter (i.e., God and His attributes) that only a select few are able to recognize as false.
But even if someone objects and says, “That’s too strict”, Ibn Taymiyya responds: It clearly isn’t, but let’s consider two more relaxed standards for the sake of argument:
2. It’s agreed upon by all of those who specialize in systematic rational inquiry.
3. It’s at least agreed upon by a particular theological school.
Yet the rational arguments they use to reinterpret the Qur’an don’t meet ANY of these.
▫️ One group says their argument is definitive.
▫️ Another group says the same argument is flawed.
▫️ Even within one sect, no universal rational consensus exists on the specifics or underlying premises of the arguments they claim are definitive.
This alone shows that these arguments are not definitive. Why? Because since God created human beings with the ability to reason and instructed them to use that ability, then:
▫️ If these foundational matters — which certainly include anything to do with God and His attributes — are only accessible through convoluted philosophical reasoning that even specialists dispute, then revelation hasn’t really guided anyone on these matters.
▫️ It’s unreasonable to assume that God would send a revelation whose apparent meaning aligns with our basic intuitions, yet in reality, it means the opposite — and only highly speculative reasoning can uncover the truth.
D. The False Division
Another way Ibn Taymiyya critiques this framework is by showing that dividing the evidence in question into either rational or scriptural is a false construction.
The framework assumes (either explicitly or by entailment) that Qur’anic guidance only based on blind acceptance (after the establishment of a miracle, for example) — and that it doesn't engage our intellects on these matters.
But this is not true. The Qur’an contains rational arguments, analogies, counter-arguments, and evidence that actively address mankind rationally.
So the contrast is not between evidence based in reason and evidence based in revelation.
The real contrast is between:
▫️ Evidence sourced in revelation (which includes rational evidence), and
▫️ Speculative or innovative reasoning imported from outside.
Conclusion
For Ibn Taymiyyah, the qanun kulli is not just flawed and irrational — it’s upside down.
Revelation was sent to clarify, not to be overwritten. It was sent in clear, direct language — not to be filtered through centuries of speculative debate.
Reason is embedded within the revelation that was sent to guide those who use reason — but reasoning that is speculative, manufactured, and disputed even among its own proponents does not sit above the speech of God.
1. The Rule: When Reason and Revelation Seem to Clash
Many theologians held a guiding principle:
"When a definitive rational evidence contradicts the apparent meaning of revelation, the text must be reinterpreted."
Al-Razi is among those who articulated this rule most clearly. In his works, he lays out four possible responses when a definitive rational argument seems to conflict with the apparent meaning of a scriptural text:
1) Accept both — impossible, because it implies a contradiction.
2) Reject both — not viable, as it undermines all sources of knowledge.
3) Accept revelation and reject reason — not possible, since reason is required to even understand revelation and affirm its truthfulness. To reject reason is to reject revelation itself.
4) Accept reason and reinterpret revelation — this, he argues, is the only valid path.
This became known as the qanun kulli — the “universal rule” — and it was used by many theologians to justify allegorical reinterpretations of verses dealing with God’s attributes.
2. Ibn Taymiyya’s Critique
Ibn Taymiyya’s critique hits this principle from multiple angles:
A. We Don’t Judge Based on Labels
He argues that the key question is not whether a piece of evidence is rational or scriptural, but whether it is:
▫️ Definitive in reliability (qat'i al-thubut)
▫️ Definitive in meaning (qat'i al-dalala)
So:
▫️ When two sources of evidence seem to conflict, the one that is definitive in both reliability/authenticity and meaning takes precedence — regardless of whether it is labeled "rational" or "scriptural".
▫️ If both were truly definitive, they could not contradict each other — because two definitive proofs cannot clash. If one contradicts the other, then at least one of them is not truly definitive.
This framework applies to all types of evidence — whether rational, scriptural, or otherwise.
With that established, we can now assess how it applies to both types of evidence in question: scriptural and rational.
B. Scriptural Evidence Isn’t Unclear
The Qur’an is agreed upon by all Muslims to be definitive in reliability/authenticity.
When it comes to meaning, Ibn Taymiyya says that the verses about God’s attributes are also definitive in meaning because of how they are worded in Arabic.
Take, for example:
▫️ “God spoke to Moses…”
▫️ “What I created with My own hands…”
These verses use direct attribution — one of the clearest and most unmistakable grammatical constructions in the Arabic language.
In Arabic, when a quality or action is being assigned to a subject, this is the most unambiguous way to do it. If these aren’t clear, then nothing in Arabic is.
So the verses of attributes are:
▫️ Definitive in reliability — the Qur’an is mutawatir and agreed upon.
▫️ Definitive in meaning — their phrasing is direct and unequivocal, understood by fluent Arabs without external interpretive tools.
What follows from this is that any argument that contradicts these verses cannot itself be definitive. Because if it were, that would mean two definitive pieces of evidence are in conflict — which is impossible.
If someone claims these phrases are unclear, let them show us a clearer way to assign a quality to a subject in the Arabic language — they won’t find one.
So, these are not obscure phrases needing philosophical decoding centuries later.
C. What Counts as a Definitive Rational Proof?
When it comes to rational evidence,Ibn Taymiyya argues that for something to be considered a definitive rational proof, it must meet at least one of the following standards:
1. It’s agreed upon by all rational people.
This is the real standard — because if something is truly definitive in a rational sense, and is strong enough to override the apparent meaning of what God revealed about Himself, then all sound minds should be able to grasp it. Otherwise, revelation becomes misleading, as it would appear to affirm something about a foundational matter (i.e., God and His attributes) that only a select few are able to recognize as false.
But even if someone objects and says, “That’s too strict”, Ibn Taymiyya responds: It clearly isn’t, but let’s consider two more relaxed standards for the sake of argument:
2. It’s agreed upon by all of those who specialize in systematic rational inquiry.
3. It’s at least agreed upon by a particular theological school.
Yet the rational arguments they use to reinterpret the Qur’an don’t meet ANY of these.
▫️ One group says their argument is definitive.
▫️ Another group says the same argument is flawed.
▫️ Even within one sect, no universal rational consensus exists on the specifics or underlying premises of the arguments they claim are definitive.
This alone shows that these arguments are not definitive. Why? Because since God created human beings with the ability to reason and instructed them to use that ability, then:
▫️ If these foundational matters — which certainly include anything to do with God and His attributes — are only accessible through convoluted philosophical reasoning that even specialists dispute, then revelation hasn’t really guided anyone on these matters.
▫️ It’s unreasonable to assume that God would send a revelation whose apparent meaning aligns with our basic intuitions, yet in reality, it means the opposite — and only highly speculative reasoning can uncover the truth.
D. The False Division
Another way Ibn Taymiyya critiques this framework is by showing that dividing the evidence in question into either rational or scriptural is a false construction.
The framework assumes (either explicitly or by entailment) that Qur’anic guidance only based on blind acceptance (after the establishment of a miracle, for example) — and that it doesn't engage our intellects on these matters.
But this is not true. The Qur’an contains rational arguments, analogies, counter-arguments, and evidence that actively address mankind rationally.
So the contrast is not between evidence based in reason and evidence based in revelation.
The real contrast is between:
▫️ Evidence sourced in revelation (which includes rational evidence), and
▫️ Speculative or innovative reasoning imported from outside.
Conclusion
For Ibn Taymiyyah, the qanun kulli is not just flawed and irrational — it’s upside down.
Revelation was sent to clarify, not to be overwritten. It was sent in clear, direct language — not to be filtered through centuries of speculative debate.
Reason is embedded within the revelation that was sent to guide those who use reason — but reasoning that is speculative, manufactured, and disputed even among its own proponents does not sit above the speech of God.
