Muslims rose to prominence by following revelation. They receded into obscurity by following tradition. For tradition is a reflection of revelation. Yet tradition has practically become a fetish. How did the reorientation from revelation to tradition take place? It appears that Muslims became captivated by tradition. At first, there was just the authority of revelation. With the establishment of religion, tradition began to compete with revelation for attention. First, tradition cast doubt on the ability of reason to "explain" revelation. To discredit reason further, tradition portrayed the use of reason in explaining revelation as a form of kufr. This was the beginning of the descent into anti-rationalism. To enhance its prestige further, tradition presented itself as "equal" to revelation. This took place in defiance of statements in revelation that Allah has no "equals." As a result of the incorporation of tradition in revelation, the meaning of "revelation" became broader. Revelation was no longer restricted to mean the word of God; it would also encompass reports by persons known as "transmitters." The elevation of tradition to revelation had profound effects on the Muslim civilization. For revelation found a "partner" in tradition. In the longer term, tradition did not merely "supplement" or "clarify" revelation. It went on to "judge," and even "abrogate" parts of revelation. Traditions - reports of persons - replaced the words of God. Hence, renewal requires rescuing the knowledge of revelation from corruption by unwarranted accretions and assumptions, as the perception that tradition is revelation. Knowledge of revelation also requires being rescued from unwarranted practices, as the teaching of abrogation. These tasks require the engagement and therefore the rehabilitation of reason. For as a result of the disparagement of reason, people were prodded to follow traditions even against reason. The rehabilitation of the knowledge of revelation requires the affirmation of the pre-eminence of revelation in relation to tradition. Tradition, for its part, requires being relegated to its role as the actualization of revelation in practice rather than its "equal," "judge" or "abrogator." As a result of the shutting of the gates to ijtihad, the reasoning ability of exegetes atrophied. They began to experience difficulties in comprehending revelation. In response, and in defiance of the teaching of revelation, they pronounced parts of revelation to be "unclear." For revelation presents itself as "clear." They thereby denied a part of what revelation teaches, that it is "a perspicuous book" (kitab al mubin). The rejection of reason necessitated recourse to an alternative way of "explaining" revelation. This alternative way was the engagement of tradition to "explain" revelation. This was rather strange, as tradition appears to require explanation, more than revelation. For there are multiple variants of traditions. The decision to turn to tradition rather than reason to explain revelation reflected the belief that tradition explains better than reason. That even understanding tradition requires the use of reason was disregarded. Exegetes were expected to refrain from using their reason. The recourse to tradition to "explain" revelation, however, required the elevation of tradition to revelation. For in verses 44, 45 and 47 of chapter 5 of the Quran, Allah has forbidden "judging" by anything that He did not reveal. The elevation of tradition to revelation had far reaching and not entirely welcome effects. It expanded the scope of revelation and in the process affected its teaching. Revelation encompassed six extra books, the traditions. Revelation would be "supplemented" and "explained" by tradition. It was declared that "tradition judges revelation" and that "revelation needs tradition more than tradition needs revelation." This reversed the relationship between revelation and tradition.