AsSalamu’alaikum.
I apologise in advance if this is the wrong subreddit for that.

I would appreciate if whoever read any of these books shared their insights based on authenticity, how helpful they were, etc.

Jazak Allahu khairan.

Assalamualaikum, as per the title says, I'm looking for the English translation of Ahkam ul Nisa by ibne al jawzi. Unfortunately I couldn't find any translation of that book, can anyone tell me if there has been one? Also as an alternative, can you please recommend me any other book by highly renowned scholars whose books will always be relevant, have been relevant and practiced over all the times? I am specifically looking for books that provide a comprehensive guidance for women, a better alternative is if there is any renowned work about the female sahabas of islam. Will appreciate any suggestions Thank you!

Source: “Reading the Qur’an in the Twenty-first Century - A Contextualist Approach” by Abdullah Saeed

I’m interested in learning more about Islamic philosophy and I’m looking for good resources: books, scholars, lectures, podcasts, or any other materials you would recommend.

Thanks in advance

Does the Quran, in its conception of prophetic doctrine, clearly state that earlier Israelite prophets believed in things such as a clearly defined heaven, hell and a day of judgment?

Is 5:5 verse quran is limited to them only or it is permitted to any monothiest? I searched each traditional,modern reformist ideas but none of them make sense. On classical rulling early jurist or early thinkers hold that it is limited to this group only. From modern progressive or quranist pov it's broader and they add context from outside source to verify their position. What's this subs conclusion on this topic?

What's the reason Islamic scholars failed to evolve inheritence law etc?? What main mechanism under orthodoxy and progressive islam work where one consider context for rule while other group don't??

I am not very familiar with this topic, but I have encountered claims that early Islamic scholars, particularly the authors of sīra literature, believed that prophets were capable of making mistakes. To what extent is this claim historically accurate?

(Warning : this is a long read , thank you very much for reading)

**In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.**

Art… and Islam.

Yesterday, I watched the documentary shown in the image , a wonderful video I recommend you watch , MEX19 is the channel , and it is talking more about Arab arts and culture , but the response . It left me asking myself: What has become of art, Islam, identity, and civilization? Then today, I came across a response to that documentary—and I found myself wondering: is that response really correct? Which is claiming arts would lead us to sins, even if indirectly.

There is no doubt that many Muslims today, including numerous scholars across the Muslim world, consider many forms of art to be prohibited or at least highly discouraged. Music, figurative imagery, and mixed-gender artistic settings are often placed among questionable or forbidden matters, and many people avoid them out of fear of falling into religious doubt.

But the real question is this:

Has this always been the case throughout Islamic history? And is this truly the legislation of God?

For more than fourteen centuries, art has been one of the defining characteristics of Islamic civilization. It flourished in countless forms and became renowned for its beauty, precision, innovation, and sophistication. Muslim artists and craftsmen combined mathematics, architecture, engineering, geometry, color theory, and aesthetics to create works that reflected the remarkable integration of scientific knowledge and artistic creativity. Excellence in mathematics and excellence in art often went hand in hand.

Sometimes this development was driven by practical needs. As the Muslim world expanded, determining the direction of the Qiblah from distant lands required increasingly advanced mathematical and astronomical knowledge. Muslims immersed themselves in these sciences and became among the world’s leading mathematicians. Such practical necessities indirectly helped shape the artistic identity of Islamic civilization.

Muslim societies also absorbed influences from the civilizations that came under Muslim rule. Artistic styles varied according to geography, dynasty, political priorities, and historical period.

From the Byzantines came mosaics, domes, and elaborate interior decoration.

From Persia came palace architecture, grand arches, and formal garden design.

From China came porcelain craftsmanship and the celebrated blue-and-white ceramic tradition.

From India came intricate ornamentation and the refined art of miniature painting.

Every dynasty selected what best suited its own vision.

The Umayyads, for example, drew heavily from Byzantine architecture in decorating the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus and the mosaics of the Dome of the Rock. Although they rejected the use of religious figurative imagery inside mosques, this did not prevent them from creating breathtaking beauty through geometry, mosaics, and ornamentation. Their admiration for Roman and Byzantine imperial architecture was evident, perhaps reflecting an appreciation for imperial grandeur itself.

The Abbasids, on the other hand, were far more attracted to Persian architectural traditions. One reason may have been the important role Persian elites played in establishing the Abbasid state. The palaces of the Abbasid era and the magnificent stucco decorations of Samarra remain enduring examples of that influence.

Music likewise occupied an important place in Islamic civilization.

The oud, ney, rababah, and daf were widely used instruments. Historical sources even indicate that some teachers of the founders of the four Sunni schools were themselves musicians—a fact that deserves careful study. Musical gatherings flourished, systems of melody and maqamat were developed, and music itself was approached as both an art and a science.

The philosopher Al-Farabi devoted his monumental work The Great Book of Music to this discipline. Great musicians such as Ibrahim al-Mawsili, Ishaq al-Mawsili, and Ziryab became legendary figures in the history of Islamic culture.

Nor was Islamic art limited to architecture and music.

Arabic calligraphy evolved into one of the world’s greatest artistic traditions, producing scripts such as Kufic, Naskh, Thuluth, and Diwani. Different dynasties cultivated different styles.

Applied arts also flourished: glassmaking, ceramics, metalwork, textiles, carpets, finely crafted Persian rugs, decorated weapons, Damascus steel, and countless other crafts achieved extraordinary levels of quality.

Poetry and literature occupied an equally distinguished place. From the Mu’allaqat to classical qasidahs and Andalusian muwashshahat, Muslims developed a literary tradition unlike any other. The poetic worlds of Al-Mutanabbi and Ferdowsi alone reveal an ocean of intellectual and artistic achievement.

Even figurative painting existed throughout various periods of Islamic history.

Fatimid, Abbasid, Persian, and Turkish manuscripts frequently contained illustrations of people, animals, and scenes from everyday life. The famous illustrations of Maqamat al-Hariri portray daily social life in remarkable detail. Historical manuscripts sometimes depicted episodes from the Prophet’s biography, while deliberately representing the Prophet and angels as radiant light—or without facial features—out of reverence. Other manuscripts omitted the Rightly Guided Caliphs altogether, while some avoided facial features for every figure.

Yet despite these differences, Muslims broadly agreed that mosques and sacred religious spaces should remain free of images depicting living beings.

Islamic art prized harmony, proportion, creativity, and innovation.

It never possessed a single uniform style.

The Taj Mahal and the Alhambra are both masterpieces, yet each reflects a different era, dynasty, and cultural environment.

The Umayyad Mosque, the Great Mosque of Samarra, the mosques of Isfahan and Samarkand, traditional clothing, swords, carpets, manuscripts, and architecture—all testify to a civilization whose artistic richness was inseparable from its scientific, economic, and commercial vitality.

Unfortunately, history changed.

The discovery of the New World transformed global trade routes. The Ottoman Empire, the Safavids, and the Mughal Empire gradually weakened economically and technologically for many complex reasons that deserve independent discussion. Colonialism followed, and with it came intellectual decline.

At the same time, more restrictive interpretations of Islam increasingly discouraged or prohibited many artistic expressions, while the modern West moved toward artistic simplification, globalized aesthetics, and different cultural priorities.

Yet Islamic art was never Western art.

Whether the West changes or the Far East changes, Islamic civilization possesses its own independent identity.

So why should music itself be forbidden, provided it is not accompanied by obscenity, immorality, sinful environments, or distractions that prevent people from fulfilling their responsibilities?

History records scholars who were musicians, architects, painters, and artists while remaining respected religious authorities.

When one branch of knowledge declines, others often decline with it.

Knowledge is interconnected.

The mathematical brilliance of Muslim civilization elevated its architecture; scientific advancement enriched its artistic achievements. When one field collapsed, curiosity diminished, creativity faded, and other sciences gradually weakened as well.

Our Golden Age was not defined merely by possessing knowledge—it was defined by leading the world in every field while expressing that knowledge through a uniquely Islamic civilization.

God did not prohibit art itself.

Rather, He prohibited extravagance, wastefulness, and becoming so consumed by worldly pursuits that one neglects poverty, suffering, justice, and worship.

When art remains within ethical boundaries, harms no one, and does not violate divine limits, the default principle is permissibility.

Indeed, Muslims should aspire once again to lead in every field of knowledge—including the arts—while expressing our own identity with confidence and originality. We can appreciate the civilizations of others, learn from them, and allow them to learn from us.

Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim man and woman.

Art, too, is a branch of knowledge and one of the means through which humanity fulfills its responsibility to cultivate the Earth, as God intended.

Today, however, intellectual stagnation, excessive rigidity, and misunderstanding have become widespread.

Rather than recognizing that our decline in the arts reflects a broader civilizational decline, we abandoned the arts altogether and used that abandonment to justify our weakness.

Instead of distinguishing between different forms of artistic expression, many reduced them all to a single forbidden category, often without careful reasoning or thoughtful reflection. Ironically, we also absorbed the modern Western tendency toward artistic simplification and globalization while believing we were resisting Western influence.

Alas…

Once, we possessed independent sciences, independent arts, and an independent civilization.

For more than thirteen centuries we developed artistic traditions that were unmistakably our own. We can do so again without merely imitating the West.

God did not grant humanity reason only to legislate against it.

He repeatedly commands us in the Qur’an to reflect upon His signs, upon creation, and upon the heavens and the earth.

Even our Prophet Muhammad ﷺ spent long periods in contemplation before revelation descended upon him—and God chose him as His Messenger.

Who will restore the arts to Islam?

And through them, restore science, innovation, creativity, and civilization itself?

Who will revive another Golden Age—one that today survives only as a prisoner within books and poetry?

We stand before it much as a European traveler once stood before the ruins of ancient Rome, gazing upon the remnants of a civilization whose sun had long since set, asking himself:

Will there ever come another age capable of building such greatness again?

Will someone one day lift from us the burdens that have weighed upon our civilization for so very long?

Hi everyone!

Some time ago, my friend Pınar and I started a small challenge called "7 Days, 7 Verses."

Every week, we would randomly choose seven Quran verses. Each day we'd try to live by one verse, and in the evening we'd talk about how it affected us, what we experienced, and what we learned from it. Because we believe it is important not only to read the verses of the Quran but also to apply them to our lives.

After a while, we found ourselves asking:

"What if anyone could experience something like this?"

That simple idea gradually turned into a mobile app.

Instead of just reading the Quran from beginning to end, the app lets you create your own journey around topics that matter to you—such as patience, gratitude, forgiveness, trust in God, and many more.

You receive a verse, try to apply it in your daily life for as long as you choose, and if you'd like, you can anonymously share your reflections and experiences with others.

Our goal isn't simply to help people read the Quran more.

It's to help people live its teachings, one small step at a time, and hopefully inspire one another along the way.

📱 Android
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yasayanayetler

🍎 iOS
https://apps.apple.com/tr/app/ya%C5%9Fayan-ayet/id6775405321

🌐 Web
https://yasayanayet.app/

📷 Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/yasayanayet.app/

The app has only recently been released, so I'm mainly looking for honest feedback.

If you were using an app like this, what features would you love to see?

I'd truly appreciate any suggestions or constructive criticism. Thank you! 🙏

Although Ibn Arabi never used the expression Wahdat al-Wujud ("Unity of Being"), it later became associated with the Akbarian tradition, the school of thought named after his honorific al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master). Since the phrase has often been misunderstood, especially in modern discussions, what follows is my own attempt to summarise Ibn Arabi's metaphysics as clearly and faithfully as possible. It is ultimately my own interpretation and synthesis of his thought, so it may well contain errors or oversimplifications.

A note on terminology: In what follows, Being (al-Wujud) refers to the "is-ness" by which anything exists, not God conceived as an entity or object. Essence (al-Dhat) refers to what God is in Himself, His innermost reality, forever beyond all created knowledge and comprehension. Not in the loose English use of "essence of the poem" for example.

~~~

The ocean is not God in His Essence, for God's Essence (al-Dhat) is utterly hidden, incomparable, and transcendent. Rather, the ocean, like all creation, is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being (al-Wujud) is disclosed by the theophanies (tajalliyat) of His infinite Divine Names, each appearing in a delimited form. A calm sea, for example, may disclose Names of Beauty (Jamal), such as al-Wasi' (the All-Encompassing) and al-Jamil (the Beautiful). Its vastness may also disclose al-Jalil (the Majestic). By contrast, a violent, stormy sea may disclose other Names of Majesty (Jalal), such as al-Qahhar (the Subduer) and al-Qawi (the All-Strong). So too with all creation: every created thing discloses multiple Divine Names simultaneously, though some Names are more evident than others in a given theophany.

Before their outward existence, all created things are eternally known by God as the immutable entities (a'yan al-thabita): the uncreated fixed possibilities of all that is to be created. They possess no independent existence, nor do they occupy a place "within" God, for God's knowledge is neither spatial nor temporal. Rather, they are the fixed possibilities according to which creation receives existence through the continual Divine theophanies (tajalliyat) of the Divine Names. According to Ibn Arabi, creation is continuously renewed (tajdid al-khalq), each instant receiving existence anew through a fresh Divine theophany (tajalli).

The universe must be viewed from two complementary, not contradictory, vantage points. From the eye of al-Haqq, or al-Haqiqa, creation possesses no independent existence ('adam in itself). The universe is like a mirror through which God's one Being is disclosed by the theophanies of His Divine Names; in this sense, its existence is entirely borrowed from the Real. Like a reflection in a mirror, it has no independent reality apart from the one reflected, yet the reflection is never identical with the one before the mirror. Likewise, God neither indwells creation (hulul), as grapes rest in a bowl or water fills a vessel, nor becomes united with it (ittihad), as wine mixes with water. Such notions wrongly assume two independently existing realities, whereas creation possesses no independent being apart from the Real. Multiplicity belongs to the loci (mazahir), whereas unity belongs to the one Divine Being (al-Wujud).

From the eye of the Sharia, however, there remains a real distinction between Creator and creation. We are contingent, created beings with moral responsibility, limitations, and accountability, whose existence remains wholly dependent upon the Real. Here too, there is neither indwelling nor union: God is never contained by creation, nor does creation become God.

Every created thing is huwa la huwa (He/Not He)It is "He" insofar as God's one Being alone is disclosed through it, just as a reflection truly discloses the one standing before a mirror. Yet a reflection is never the very thing standing before it, nor is it identical with the one reflected. Likewise, every created thing remains "not He" because it's a finite, contingent locus (mazhar), never God's Essence.

Even what appears ugly or evil is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being is disclosed by the Divine Names of Majesty (Jalal) such as al-Mumit (The Giver of Death). The realised gnostic ('arif) recognises these, too, as Divine theophanies of those Names, while still judging evil as evil and acting according to the Sharia. Thus, metaphysical realisation never abolishes moral responsibility.

Where, then, is creation in relation to God? According to Ibn Arabi, the question itself is misleading. God is not a body, nor is He subject to space, direction, or location. Therefore, creation is neither "inside" God, as though He were a container, nor "outside" Him, as though something could exist independently beyond the One Reality. Such spatial categories belong only to the created order. Creation exists only through God's perpetual self-disclosure (tajalli), by which each instant of existence is continually bestowed anew, while God forever transcends every locus, direction, and limitation.

Thus, Ibn Arabi's doctrine is neither pantheism, which identifies creation with God, nor deism, which separates creation from God's continuous self-disclosure. It also transcends the ordinary sense of panentheism, for creation is neither "within" nor "outside" God, since such spatial categories cannot be applied to the Divine. Rather, it is a metaphysics of perpetual Divine self-disclosure (tajalli), in which God's one Being is disclosed through His Divine Names while His Essence remains forever hidden and transcendent. Thus, the realised gnostic beholds both tanzih (transcendence) and tashbih (immanence) together without sacrificing one for the other.

~~~

What do you think? 🌷

Ignoring the verses in the Quran implying the existence of a big bang and a constant expansion of the universe, how strong of an inductive argument is occam’s razor regarding proving the existence of a higher power via the big bang? Not a philosopher, or very educated in this field in general, just a shower thought I had and some time to kill.

human intelligence can be classified into numerous categories. the other day, however, while reading the Quran, the term Ulūl-Albāb caught my attention. in a simple translation, it means 'those endowed with pure intellect or possessors of pure understanding'. yet, to express knowledge here, the word Lubb is used, which etymologically refers to the kernel at the core of a nut, beneath its shell. in a spiritual sense this represents the True knowledge of things, rather than a mere intelligence level measurable by IQ tests.

nowadays, parallel to the rapid advancement of AI, we remain focused on conventional human intelligence while witnessing AI claim more and more ground. we try to defend it, fight for it. could, however, this specific form of knowledge be the very last stronghold to which only we, as humans, have access? could it be that our survival will be ensured precisely by Ulūl-Albāb?

Source of the image: https://www.decontemporary.org/kernel-seed-nut-spore

I'm proud to finally share my thesis/dissertation!

[https://www.academia.edu/170295905/Divine\\_Discourse\\_and\\_Historical\\_Conflict\\_The\\_Quran\\_s\\_Engagement\\_with\\_the\\_Last\\_Great\\_War\\_of\\_Antiquity\](https://www.academia.edu/170295905/Divine_Discourse_and_Historical_Conflict_The_Quran_s_Engagement_with_the_Last_Great_War_of_Antiquity)

I would like to know if any texts by early Muslims (in the first few centuries) indicate an awareness of any distant lands, and if they specifically indicate Muslims have not explored them yet.

Assalamu Alaykum.

I have been wondering. I know that Allah (SWT) created the jinn before humans, but what I want to know is the wisdom behind it. Why did Allah (SWT) create the jinn before Adam (AS)? Please help me find the answer and provide authentic references.

https://youtu.be/lV5rVeHIFE4?si=9K-UZY70uoKUuxYz

I would say that my beleifs align with classical Sunni Islalm so I do accept hadiths, I know many don't accept hadiths here, but I still think you can gain a lot from reading this.

I was iust watching this interview with the legendary Sheikh Abdul Basit, and it struck me again how deeply our greatest Qur'an reciters were embedded in the classical Egyptian musical tradition. It's a beautiful reminder that for masters like him, Mustafa Ismail, and, the overwhelming majority of Egyptian reciters, music and the Qur'an were never mutually exclusive; in fact, their appreciation for the arts informed the very beauty of their recitation.

Abdul Basit was a well-known, avid fan of Umm Kulthum, she, herself, a hafiza (one that memorised the entire Qur'an)—as Egyptian reciters and scholars have always been—and one can clearly see the influence of her music, and broader classical Egyptian music, on that school of Egyptian recitation.

Sheikh Rif'at was also an avid lover of music. In fact, Sheikh Rif'at was an avid collector of even European classical music on gramophone vinyl records. His personal library was packed with the symphonies of Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, and Verdi.

Sheikh Mustafa Ismail also studied with musicians to learn the maqamat and also musicians like Muhammad Abdelwahab studied with him! Conversely, Umm Kulthum herself used to consult directly with Sheikh Mustafa Ismail regarding the maqams of her songs. During one legendary exchange, the Sheikh suggested a subtle adjustment to one of her song's vocal conclusions (qafla). Umm Kulthum was stunned and remarked, "You are unbelievable! I had the exact same idea."

Reciting the Qur’an using maqamat (musical modes) was practiced by Abdul Basit, the Egyptian reciters, and indeed the overwhelming majority of Shafi'is in our history as it is explicitly mustahab (recommended) in the Shafi’i madhhab, for it is a lie what commonly gets told today: reciting quran with maqamat is haram.

Certainly, there are entire scholarly lineages in the Shafi’i madhhab that hold that all musical instruments are permissible if the context is clean. They acknowledge that all "anti-music" hadiths, and especially the "anti-music" Qur’anic verses, are tied strictly to contexts of negative diversion and only prohibit it under those conditions.

Truly, giants in the Shafi’i madhhab allowed all musical instruments, even though the two Ibn Hajars were against it. Though an argument could be made that Kaff al-Ru'a' 'an Muharramat al-Lahw wa al-Sama' (Deterring the Vulgar Masses from the Prohibitions of Idle Diversion and Listening) was prohibiting the vulgar masses out of sadd al-dhara'i' (blocking the means to sin), not prohibiting it for the spiritually mature. An interpretation famously championed by the Hanafi Grand Mufti of Damascus in the 18th century, Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, in his treatise Idah al-Dalalat fi Sama' al-Allat (Clarifying the Evidences for Listening to Instruments), and by many other scholars.

These permissive scholars include the Sheikh al-Islam and Sultan al-'Ulama' (Sultan of Scholars) Al-'Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam, Sheikh al-Islam Al-Suyuti, Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, the Saint Al-Qushayri, and the Saint Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili. This view also covers entire lineages like Al-Azhar from the 18th century to our day, and Yemeni Shafi’is who routinely composed spiritual poetry to be played on the qunbus (Yemeni oud).

For it is provably a lie what is so often said: that music and the Qur’an cannot coexist in one heart. Unquestionably, the greatest Qur’an reciters we know of were avid music lovers; nay, we know that reciters like Mustafa Ismail and Abdul Basit openly loved and studied music to improve and inform their recitation.

Finally, I leave you with a funny but honest quote from Hassan al-Attar, the 19th-century Sheikh al-Islam and Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar:

\> He who is not moved by delicate poetry, recited with the tongue of stringed instruments, on the banks of rivers, in the shade of trees, is a coarse-natured donkey.

I lied, this is really the last thing I am gonna say, finally, there is a difference between a true ijma' (consensus) and a claimed ijma. Ibn Taymiyyah and the 9 other scholars, or so, that claimed consensus were engaging in a scholarly project to create unity, rather than actually reflecting the (ikhtilaf) disagreement on the issue.

What do you think? May Allah purify my heart and yours, and don't forget to send salawat on the Prophet 🌷

I learned about this theory here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimAcademics/comments/1rsblah/dhul_qarnayn_is_king_solomon_heres_12_reasons_why/

I see a lot of discourse online, particularly from certain traditionalist or literalist camps, where people claim that rulings are based on "objective fact" derived from the texts. I find this fascinating because I think it fundamentally misunderstands what the texts actually are and how jurisprudence works. If a fact is based on your interpretation of a text or your specific moral framework, it is not objective. It is simply your subjective reality presented with theological certainty. Saying "the objective fact based on my values" is basically a meme at this point because it conflates empirical reality with personal conviction.

To claim that the codified rules of faith are wholly contained within the Mushaf, the Uthmanic text, is frankly ahistorical. The Quran is the foundational source, but it is not a legal codex. The number of explicit, unequivocal legal rulings in the Quran is surprisingly limited when it comes to the details of everyday life. Everything else, including the extrapolation of punishments, financial transactions, and social norms, is the product of ijtihad. By its very definition, ijtihad is the subjective exertion of a mujtahid's intellect based on linguistic understanding, cultural context, and logical reasoning.

Even the concept of consensus, or ijma, is not free from subjectivity because there has never been universal agreement on what actually constitutes ijma. Is it the consensus of the scholars of Medina, the Companions, or the entire Ummah? Different madhhabs define its parameters differently, which means the very mechanism people use to claim objectivity is itself built upon subjective methodological choices.

I suspect the root of this disagreement is a fundamental difference in how we view the Sunnah as an authoritative legal source, and that is a theological disagreement we can simply acknowledge. However, as Muslims and students of history, I think we have a duty to recognize that fiqh has never been a monolithic or static legal code. It was intentionally developed to account for differences in time and place, and I believe that is part of its beauty. The Sharia practiced in a Moroccan village does not look identical to the Sharia practiced in tenth century Baghdad or eighteenth century Indonesia, and historically that was considered a strength rather than a flaw.

So, if you claim that fiqh contains objectively correct rulings, how do you reconcile the inherent subjectivity of ijtihad with that claim? If scholars such as al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Abu Hanifa reached significantly different conclusions on major legal issues, does that not demonstrate that what people call "objective fact" has often been the product of sincere but human reasoning?

To whom is this speech of Jesus in the Quran (foretelling the coming of the 'Ahmad' figure) directed towards? The inner circle of loyal disciples, or the more general audience of Jews?

Most Religions are centered on a Divine Scripture. In religious traditions there is always a central body of texts upon which the religion is based.

Islam is no different. In Islam the central textual authority manifested in the form of the Quran and Hadith corpus.

With having a grounding textual body, comes the problem to exegetical excess. How do you constrain the apparent subjectivity of Reason from interpreting the Text in fragmentary and differentiating ways?

Islamic tradition historically came up with two solutions.

1. Literal adherence to Nass (Text)

This is a methodological solution. It is about keeping Nass (Text) foundational in Islamic Epistemology and limiting the role of Interpretative Ijtihad(Reasoning). A literal reading of the Text is preferred to keep Islamic Creed and Law grounded in Divine Certainty that comes from Wahy (Revelation) particularly.

Speculative Ijtihad (Reasoning) in the form of Kalam (Speculative Theology) and Ray-based (Reasoned Judgement-based) Jurisprudence was seen as dangerous to Islamic tradition and those who engaged in it were seen as those who follow their personal whims.

Restrictive Ijtihad (Reasoning) was allowed and it strictly or preferably had to be grounded in Nass (Text).

Imam al-Shafi's role in this epistemological view gaining dominance was crucial as he was the one who codified his own Usul al-Fiqh centered around Nass (Text). Although of course, there are more details and nuances to him.

1. Imamate as a Divinely Designated Epistemic Role

This is a theological or ontological solution.

The Imam has a Metaphysical and Cosmological Role as the Epistemic Authority for Believers.

The Imam is the Axis of Objectivity. The Imam is the one Divinely Chosen to give the Authoritative Interpretation of the Nass (Text). Divine Certainty comes from the Aql (Intellect) of the Imam and his Aql is the foremost manifestation of Aql as an Inner Proof of God.

The Ijtihad (Reasoning) of the Imam is the Objective Truth and where interpretations or applications diverge from his Ijtihad they are not Objective since the Imam is Axis of Objectivity.

This is the reason Imam is said to be Hujjah (Proof of God) amongst humanity that is necessary because God is Objectivity and Imam as the Highest Intellect is Access to Objectivity.

This is a Philosophical, although fair and traditionally grounded, Understanding of Imamate.

The question is which solution do you think is better? Which solution provides the most comprehensive and logical resolution to the problem of exegetical excess?

What do you people think about the two solutions? Which one speaks more Truth to you? Any relevant thoughts would be appreciated.