The treatment of the prophetic traditions as sacred scripture produced profound effects on the knowledge and practice of Islam. It transformed the teaching of revelation. The treatment of the prophetic traditions as sacred scriptures began with the recording of the traditions. The recording began in response to requests by rulers. The anthologies of traditions were politically driven; they buttressed the political aspirations of the rulers. The justification of the recording was buttressed by belittling recourse to reason for the purpose of understanding revelation. The ulama tasked with recording the traditions experienced reservations regarding the recording. For they remembered that Allah prohibited the fabrication of revelation, and that the prophet prohibited recording his traditions. The subordination of reason to tradition, the treatment of tradition as revelation and a root of legislation, enabled traditions to "abrogate" and "replace" rulings in the Book of Allah. These notably encompass the rulings on adultery and apostasy. What enabled departing from the Book of Allah on this scale possible in the first place? The prohibition of reasoning produced paralysis in Muslim thought. The paralysis resulted in aberrations in exegesis. These encompass perceptions that defy reason, for example the assumptions that recourse to reason for the purpose of understanding revelation is kufr, that revelation features "unclear" verses, and that tradition is revelation. Tradition took precedence in relation to revelation on the basis of the perception that "tradition judges revelation." This rearrangement enabled rulings based on traditions, without basis in revelation, to be embedded in jurisprudence. The rehabilitation of knowledge thus requires the rehabilitation of reason. Rehabilitation of reason in turn entails the emancipation of reason from the restrictions of tradition. Rehabilitation of knowledge also requires the restoration of revelation to pre-eminence and a desacralization of tradition. This should assist in addressing aberrations produced by the subjugation of revelation to tradition. Tradition superseded reason in the "explanation" of revelation. Tradition alleged that the use of reason to explain revelation was kufr. The reluctance to use reason produced adverse effects. Exegetes began to experience difficulties in understanding revelation. Parts of it began to strike them as "unclear." Hence, they declared parts of revelation to be "unclear" or "ambiguous." But this meant that revelation, which presents itself as an "explanation," itself requires "explanation." Since reason could not be used to explain revelation, exegetes turned to tradition. The recourse to tradition to "explain" revelation rested on the presumption that persons who were closer to the prophet possessed a better knowledge or revelation than everyone else afterwards. Accordingly, the best "explanation" of revelation would be furnished by traditions. Tradition would, for example, explain the right way to pray. To bolster its authority vis-à-vis reasoning, tradition was presented as revelation. In different words, the justification for "supplementary" revelation in the form of tradition was provided by the allegation that revelation was "incomplete." But to allege that the Book of Allah requires "detailing" by tradition is to treat revelation as flawed, to doubt its perfection. The elevation of tradition to revelation meant that there were two revelations to follow: the Book of Allah and the traditions. The assumption was that the two revelations would not conflict. The duality of revelation and tradition became entrenched in "traditional Islam." In this way, tradition provided "supplementary" revelation. It did not appear to trouble exegetes that the "supplementary" revelation in the shape of tradition arrived two centuries after the death of the prophet.