The umma is experiencing trauma. The reason is that the umma misunderstood revelation. The misunderstanding resulted from reading revelation without the engagement of reason. Exegetes rejected reason due to the perception that using reason to understand revelation is kufr, and that tradition "explains" revelation better than reason. The rejection of reason was a faux pas. It was an expression of a profoundly unfriendly disposition towards reason. Is it surprising that the traditional rendition of Islam strikes a rational person as less than reasonable? The misunderstanding of revelation also prevented the umma from following revelation. Is it possible to "follow" what a person does not understand? As a result of refraining from thinking, exegetes encountered difficulties in comprehending revelation. They faulted the text, not their disengagement from reason. As a result of the failure to understand revelation, exegetes embraced the perception that revelation is "unclear," "incomplete" and even "contradictory." All three characterizations defy verses that assert the contrary. For the Book of Allah asserts that it is clear, complete and coherent. The characterizations result from a perfunctory reading of the Book, a reading without the engagement of reason. The turn to tradition was justified by disparaging revelation. Revelation was treated as if it were a product of a person, while tradition was treated as if it were from Allah. This is reflected in what are referred to as the "holy traditions." The allegations that the Book is "unclear" and "incomplete" were used to justify recourse to tradition, to make up for the alleged deficit of "clarity" and "detail" in the Book. The allegation that revelation was "contradictory" entailed recourse to the teaching of the abrogation of the verses of reconciliation by the verses of the sword. To justify the turn to tradition, traditionists treat tradition as "revelation." They became enchanted with tradition and treated it as "divine." But the books of traditions are not "revelation" (tanzil), as they are not the words of Allah. They are not even the words of the prophet. For the traditions of the prophet, recorded in defiance of his prohibition of recording his traditions, are paraphrases of paraphrases of statements ascribed to the prophet by the transmitters. Unlike the Book of Allah, the traditions are not transmitted verbatim; they are transmitted by meaning. Refraining from recourse to reason deformed the sharia. This transpired through permitting revealed rulings to be replaced by harsher punishments from traditions and the writings of the ulama. These punishments are not prescribed in the Book of Allah. The punishments encompass the death penalties for apostasy, blasphemy and adultery. Embedding these punishments in penal law encroached upon Allah's exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in religion. The tension between rationalism and traditionalism is rooted in politics. Reason was "silenced" to prevent challenges to the less than rational turn from revelation to tradition. This produced ripple effects. The reorientation from revelation to tradition resulted in epic disorientation. The turn from revelation to tradition represented a break from revelation as well as from the tradition of the prophet, which was to adhere to revelation. The umma "disconnected" from the Book of Allah and "connected" to books of traditions. Renewal requires a shift from a prophet-centric paradigm to the God-centric epistemological paradigm. It also requires a shift from understanding Islam as a teaching of war to Islam as a teaching of reconciliation. These paradigm shifts should be expedited by a rehabilitation and re-engagement of reason and the re-affirmation of revelation as a pre-eminent authority in relation to all traditions and rulings of the ulama.