Who said this before you? Who among the scholars said this?

“Men are known by the truth, not by the truth.” A golden saying that we sing in forums when we present ourselves as intellectuals, but we often lose sight of it in practice, especially when it comes to thought and religion.

The mechanism of challenging the opinions of thinkers and researchers under the pretext of their “uniqueness” is still one of the most prominent tools of the proponents of the traditional religious heritage. It is a mechanism that reveals a fragility in dealing with the standard of truth, and speaks of a hidden reverence for people at the expense of ideas. Ironically, what is meant by “Who said this before you?” is often not related to documenting the idea or attributing it in its scientific context, but rather an implicit requirement that the speaker be attributed to the so-called “righteous salaf” or “Rabbani scholars” according to their sectarian categorization. If this is not the case, the statement is rejected and frowned upon, even if it is based on solid proof and solid evidence.

In this context, it is clear that many of them do not rely on the strength of the argument or the consistency of the idea with texts and reason, but rather on the name of the person who said it. They do not derive legitimacy from the scientific structure of the idea, but rather from its relationship to a symbolic figure in the Islamic heritage. Thus, the objective method of criticism is eliminated and replaced by the “basis of the saying” instead of its “proof.”

They ignore – intentionally or unintentionally – the well-established rule of thumb:

“Men are known by truth, truth is not known by men”
The truth is the criterion, and it is by it that the sincerity of the speaker is weighed, not the other way around. Whoever wants to know the people of truth, he should investigate the truth in itself, not trace the names of those who say it, as if they were texts that do not come from between their hands or behind them.

The Qur’an establishes this methodological rule in the words of Almighty God:

{Those who have avoided idols to worship them and have turned to Allah have good tidings, so gladden the servants of Allah (17) who listen to the word and follow the best of it, those who are guided by Allah, and those are the ones with the best intellects}
[Al-Zamar: 17-18].

The verse does not require a scientific title or a specific identity for those whose words are followed. Rather, the verse makes the basis of guidance to follow the best words,not the affiliation or the name of the speaker. Here, a definitive Quranic principle is established that eliminates blind reverence and rejects unconditional following of any person, no matter how highly regarded or famous he may be.

The statements of the companions, followers, and great imams – while recognizing their scientific status and leadership in their historical contexts – are not self-contained evidence, but are human ijtihad, subject to examination and criticism, and are presented to the Book of God, the laws of the universe, and the requirements of reason and proof. What agrees with the truth is accepted, and what contradicts it is rejected, because “God forbids anything but His Book to be true.”

Whoever wants to cite their sayings should not dress them in the garb of infallibility or make them a binding argument on their own. Rather, he must show the basis on which these sayings are based, and the extent to which they are consistent with the purposes of the Shari’ah, the principles of logic, and taking into account the variables of reality. Ijtihad – no matter how exalted – remains a human endeavor subject to revision and cannot be elevated to the status of a “sacred text.”

In our contemporary times, with the knowledge explosion and the digital revolution driven by artificial intelligence technologies , access to written sayings and traditional fatwas has become accessible to everyone. In fact, in many cases, search engines have become a substitute for referring to ahl al-Zikr in the traditional sense. Therefore Repeating old sayings just because they were issued by a “famous jurist” without supporting them with new evidence no longer carries any weight .

If the researcher does not have an intellectual imprint, or a conscious renewed reading that stems from examining texts in light of the data of the era, he does not go beyond being a talking memory thatdoes not belong to the production of knowledge and does not contribute to the renewal of understanding.

And it is true whoever said:

“When did the first of them become so suspicious that you started comparing such people with their counterparts?”

Living minds are not guided by names, do not hide behind titles, and do not mummify the future of the nation with outdated historical characteristics. Rather, the truth-seeking mind penetrates to the essence of the idea and weighs it with the scales of argument and proof, without regard to the identity of the speaker .

Hence, the true researcher does not stop at thresholds, nor does he fear fences, but penetrates to the core of the meaning, purpose and content,as long as reason testifies to him and logic allows him to pass. The goal is not to memorize the sayings of those who have gone before. Interacting with them critically, analyzing, and renewing, loyal to the truth and not to people .