He said:

“This was the view of the majority of scholars among the jurists and theologians, and of the majority of philosophers.”

He said:

“Our teacher—meaning al-Qādī Abū Ya‘lā—said: ‘These are not judgments of reason; rather, they are known through revealed law.’ He cited Ahmad’s statement, as narrated by ‘Abdūs ibn Mālik al-‘Attār: ‘There is no analogy in matters of the Sunnah; no comparisons are to be drawn for it, nor can it be grasped by reason. Rather, it is simply to be followed.’”

Abū al-Khattāb said:

“If this report from him is authentic, what he meant was the rulings of revealed law that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, established and prescribed.”

I say: Ahmad’s statement, “Reason cannot grasp it,” means that people’s minds cannot grasp everything the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, established as Sunnah. If they could, people’s knowledge would equal the Messenger’s knowledge. He did not mean that reason cannot recognize anything he commanded or prohibited. Thus, these words are directed primarily against those who make human reason the standard by which to judge the Sunnah. They do not refute those who make their statements conform to the Sunnah.

Abū al-Khattāb said:

“The Ash‘arīs and a group among al-Mujbira (advocates of compulsion), namely the Jahmiyyah, held this view.”

He said:

“On this distinction rests the question of the obligation to know Allah: Is it obligatory by virtue of revealed law, such that, had no revelation come, no one would be required to believe in Allah, acknowledge His oneness, or give thanks to Him—or is that not the case?

“Those who say that it is obligatory by virtue of revealed law maintain that none of these things would be binding had no revelation come. Those who hold the former view say that every rational person is obliged to believe in Allah and give thanks to Him.