Thus, before the second century had proceeded very far,...

Thus, before the second century had proceeded very far, Muslim society had broadly split into four groups: The theologians, the philosophers, the Sufis, and the people of tradition. There was intellectual chaos in the Ummah and the Muslims, generally speaking, had lost their bearing. The only thing to which all were committed was the word, “There is no god except Allah, and Muhammad (peace be upon him and his household) is the Messenger of Allah’. They differed from each other in everything else.

There was a dispute on the meanings of the names and attributes of Allah, as well as about His actions; there was conflict about the reality of the heavens and the earth and what is in and on them; there were controversies about the decree of Allah and the divine measure; opinions differed on whether a man is a helpless tool in divine hands, or is a free agent; there were wranglings about various aspects of reward and punishment; arguments were kicked like a ball, from one side to the other concerning the realities of death, al-barzakh intervening period between death and the Day of Resurrection; resurrection, paradise and hell.

In short, not a single subject, having any relevance to religion, was left without discord of one type or the other. And this divergence, not unexpectedly, showed itself in the exegesis of the Quran. Every group wanted to support his views and opinions from the Quran, and the exegesis had to serve this purpose. The people of tradition explained the Quran with the traditions ascribed to the companions and their disciples.

They went ahead so long as there was a tradition to lead them on and stopped when they could not find any such tradition (provided the meaning was not self-evident). They thought it to be the only safe method, as Allah says: “ … and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say:’ “We believe in it, it is all from our Lord…” (Quran 3:7) But they were mistaken. Allah has not said in His Book that rational proof had no validity.

How could He say so when the authenticity of the Book itself depended on rational proof? On the other hand, He has never said that the words of the companions or their disciples had any value as religious proof. How could He say so when there were such glaring discrepancies in their opinions? In short, Allah has not called us to the sophistry that accepting and following contradictory opinions and views would entail.