contain nothing derived from revelation.

They then divided: some gave precedence to revealed proofs and impugned rational proofs, while others did the reverse. Both groups fall short in understanding the true nature of revealed and rational proofs. Both tendencies are found among the followers of the imams: Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, and others.

[The remarks of Abū al-Faraj Sadaqah ibn al-Husayn]

Much of the disagreement over this may be merely verbal. I have witnessed remarkable instances of this. Some followers of Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Ahmad adopted the first approach and accused those who disagreed with them of ignorance and stupidity. Indeed, one of Ahmad’s later followers, Abū al-Faraj Sadaqah ibn al-Husayn al-Baghdādī, wrote a work entitled Mahajjat al-Sārī fī Maʿrifat al-Bārī (The Night Traveller’s Clear Path to Knowledge of the Creator). In it, he followed the approach of Ibn ʿAqīl and similar speculative theologians who affiliated themselves with the Sunnah—an approach intermixed with Muʿtazilī thought, despite their disagreement with the Muʿtazilah over the defining tenets of the latter’s school. He stated that he had been asked by what means knowledge is attained, on what basis it becomes obligatory, and to explain people’s differing views on this matter.

He mentioned that people disagreed over the first obligation incumbent upon a person after attaining puberty and reason: is it rational inquiry or knowledge? They agreed that knowledge is obligatory but disagreed over the basis of that obligation. He said:

“The adherents of truth, the Sunnah, and the community hold that the basis of obligation is revelation and transmitted evidence. The Muʿtazilah say that the basis of obligation is reason.”