The Muʿtazilah gave reason the status of judge over the Prophetic Sunnah, making it the criterion for acceptance or rejection of reports. If the text agreed with their reason, interpretation or opinion, they would accept it, and if not, they would reject it, deeming it inauthentic or fabricated.

And if it could not be rejected, being from the Qurʾān, or a report with large-scale, recurring transmission (tawātur), they would engage in interpolations and far-fetched interpretations after inventing and inserting their own conventions into the Arabic language.

ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī stated about the ḥadīth narrated by al-Aʿmash (رحمه الله) with his chain to ʿAbd Allāh bin Masʿūd (رضي الله عنه), about the creation and development of the fetus in the womb and how its sex, lifespan, provision and outcome (in the Hereafter) is written down, so he (ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd) said:^[1]

Look at this boldness and arrogance!

Since the Muʿtazilah are deniers of al-Qadar, upon their claim that it is unjust to reward or punish if the deeds of the servants are decreed upon them, then they rejected the texts which affirm that the actions of the servants are decreed and they reviled anyone in the chain of transmission of such texts.

The Muʿtazilah also rejected the ḥadīths of intercession (shafāʿah) because they believed that when Allāh makes a threat of punishment, it must be fulfilled just like His promise, and therefore, whoever falls into a sin for which there is threat of punishment, such as the major sins, he will remain in Hellfire forever. Upon this, they rejected the ḥadīths of intercession, because it clashed with their faulty understanding.

They also rejected the ḥadīths of the attributes, of punishment in the grave, and of seeing Allāh in Paradise.

They also showed rejection in matters of jurisprudence, as al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (رحمه الله) relates:^[2]

Al-Khaṭīb also relates:^[3]

And also:^[4]

And al-Ẓahabī relates: ^[5]

From the above it is clear that the Muʿtazilah rejected ḥadīths related to creed and rulings pertaining to dealings and worship if they clashed with their intellects, and they also reviled those Companions and Tābiʿin who related such ḥadīths.

All of this returns back to their position that reason is the first and most decisive of the sources of knowledge, since the revelation addresses and appeals to reason itself. Hence, the order to them is reason, the Qurʾān, the Sunnah and then consensus, and reason is decisive over the others, presiding over them and being the judge.

The Ḥarakiyyūn: Inheritors of the Muʿtazilah

In the modern era, an aspect of this age-old revilement of the People of the Sunnah has been revived by the Ḥarakiyyūn (Political Activists), those nurtured upon the books of Abu Aʿlā Mawdūdī, Ḥasan al-Bannā and Sayyid Quṭb.

The ideologies derived from these books necessitate that Islām has not existed for centuries due to the authority of Allāh (sulṭah) having been allegedly usurped by tyrants, and that the single most important affair for Muslims is to work to replace the existing rulers and authorities.

To this end, they plot either coups, assassinations or they work on mobilising Muslims into marches, demonstrations, revolutions, participation in democracy and so on to acquire political authority.

They blame all the woes of the ummah upon unjust rulers, indicating the severity of their ignorance of the reality of Tawḥīd, al-Qadar, the laws of Allāh in His creation and the wisdom in His actions and legislation.

As a corollary of this doctrine, they accuse the scholars who call to the Sunnah in these affairs of not knowing “Fiqh al-Wāqiʿ” (knowledge or comprehension of current affairs), of being preoccupied in mundane, trivial issues such as rulings pertaining to purification, women's menstruation, divorce and the likes.

They refer to them as “scholars of the desert”, or “scholars of parchments (waraqāt)” in contrast to being “scholars of movements (ḥarakāt)” and they accuse the greatest of the scholars of this era—Such as Shaykh al-Albānī, Shaykh Ibn Bāz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymīn—of being "Murjiʾah with the rulers" because these scholars do not subscribe their takfīr and khurūj (revolt) against the rulers.

The reality is that just like the Muʿtazilah of old, they put reason ahead of revelation and made their reason to be the judge upon revelation. ^[6]

What they call “knowledge of current affairs” is reading reports about the sins, alleged or actual, and activities of the rulers, and of ministers, all of which is geared towards stirring people’s emotions and drawing them into their ideology of takfīr and khurūj, so they become recruits for their cause.

As part and parcel of this agenda, they have to make the common people lose trust in the scholars, the scholars who will tell them to have patience upon hardships, and upon the sin or injustice of the Muslim ruler, in accordance with the Sunnah. This is why they revile the scholars, and claim they do not know the current affairs, because these scholars are an obstacle to their attempts to contend with the authorities for power and authority.

Footnotes