The Relationship between Reason and Revelation in Māturīdī, Qādī Abd al-Jabbar and Ibn Rushd

The relationship between reason and revelation, whether reason can grasp truth independently of revelation, and the limits of reason constitute one of the fundamental debates in classical Islamic thought. These debates are cited as one of the most significant factors underlying the division into sects or theological schools and the emergence of different schools and currents of thought in the Islamic world. Muslim thinkers, with the exception of Ahl al-Hadith scholars and some Sufis, have argued that matters related to fundamental beliefs, such as the existence and unity of God and the necessity of prophethood, can be known through reason. They stipulated that faith should be based on epistemic foundations, that is, elevated to the level of investigative faith rather than imitative faith. Indeed, most Mu'tazilite, Maturidite, and Peripatetic thinkers adopted a rationalist stance, prioritizing reason over revelation and arguing that in the event of a conflict between the two, reason should prevail. The Ahl al-Hadith thinkers and the Sufis claimed that the mind could not reach a decision on its own in determining the truth of the principles of belief, and therefore, revelation should be taken as a basis by determining and controlling the areas of action of the mind.