There were some jurists who thought rulings derived through analogy could contradict a ruling derived from the Qur'an and the authentic hadith.[23] However, Ibn Taymiyyah disagreed because he thought a contradiction between the definitive canonical texts of Islam, and definitive reason was impossible[23] and that this was also the understanding of the salaf.[126]
Racha el-Omari says that on an epistemological level, Ibn Taymiyyah considered the Salaf to be better than any other later scholars in understanding the agreement between revelation and reason.[126]
One example for this is the use of analogy in the Islamic legal principle of maslaha (public good) about which Ibn Taymiyya believed, if there were to be any contradiction to revelation then it is due to a misunderstanding or misapplication of the concept of utility.[44][127]
He said that to assess the utility of something, the criteria for benefit and harm should come from the Qur'an and sunnah, a criteria which he also applied to the establishment of a correct analogy.[44][127]
An example of Ibn Taymiyyah's use of analogy was in a fatwa forbidding the use of hashish one the grounds that it was analogous to wine, and users should be given 80 lashes in punishment. "Anyone who disagreed was an apostate, he added, whose corpse ought not to be washed or given a decent burial."[119]
Reason (`Aql)Edit
Issues surrounding the use of reason ('Aql) and rational came about in relation to the attributes of God for which he faced much resistance.[44] At the time the Islamic scholars thought the attributes of God as stated in the Qur'an were contradictory to reason so sought other explanations instead.[44]
Ibn Taymiyyah believed that reasons itself validated the entire Qur'an as being reliable and in light of that he argued, if some part of the scripture was to be rejected then this would render the use of reason as an unacceptable avenue through which to seek knowledge.[44]
He thought that the most perfect rational method and use of reason was contained within the Qur'an and sunnah and that the theologians of his time had used rational and reason in a flawed manner.[44]
......Ibn Taymiyyah censured the scholars for blindly conforming to the precedence of early jurists without any resort to the Qur'an and Sunnah. He contended that although juridical precedence has its place, blindly giving it authority without contextualization, sensitivity to societal changes, and evaluative mindset in light of the Qur'an and Sunnah can lead to ignorance and stagnancy in Islamic Law. Ibn Taymiyyah likened the extremism of Taqlid (blind conformity to juridical precedence or school of thought) to the practice of Jews and Christians who took their rabbis and ecclesiastics as gods besides God. In arguing against taqlid, he said the salaf, who in order to better understand and live according to the commands of God, had to make ijtihad using the scriptural sources.[41] The same approach, in his view, was needed in modern times.[41]
Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the best role models for Islamic life were the first three generations of Islam (Salaf); which constitute Muhammad's companions, referred to in Arabic as Sahaba (first generation), followed by the generation of Muslims born after the death of Muhammad known as the Tabi'un (second generation) which is then followed lastly by the next generation after the Tabi'un known as Tabi' Al-Tabi'in (third generation). Ibn Taymiyyah gave precedence to the ideas of the Sahaba and early generations, over the founders of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence.[30] For Ibn Taymiyyah it was the Qur'an, the sayings and practices of Muhammad and the ideas of the early generations of Muslims that constituted the best understanding of Islam. Any deviation from their practice was viewed as bid‘ah, or innovation, and to be forbidden. He also praised and wrote a commentary on some speeches of Abdul-Qadir Gilani.[132]He criticized the views and actions of the Rafaiyah.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah
Is the Messenger of God, what information did he use to come to that conclusion other than his faculties of intellectual reasoning based on the data he had and sincere acceptance of the conclusions he truthfully came to? did he consult a book of his ancestors or a scholar of Makkah to know whether he should accept what he already believed to be the truth? is that not scientific calculation made with the information contained within the billions of neurons in his braIn?
and His messenger 
My friend, you sound very confused, and you have not answered my question.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks