Debates take place about the veil, a requirement of tradition rather than revelation. However, a different veil presents a greater challenge. This is the veil of ignorance. For the teaching of revelation was "veiled" by something. It was "veiled" by exegesis performed through the eyes of tradition. Tradition, that was expected to "explain" revelation, itself became a veil. Tradition "eclipsed" revelation. This "eclipse" was a "theological coup d'état." Tradition usurped the position of revelation. Ironically, tradition eclipsed what enabled its emergence in the first place: revelation. Regrettably, there was a further "coup." This was the replacement of reason by tradition. A third "coup" transpired when the ulema became the final arbiters of the exegesis of tradition as well as revelation. These "coups" produced confusion. How did this transpire? First, in a process of "creeping shirk," becoming enchanted by tradition, Muslims turned from the revealed Book of Allah to the manmade books of traditions. According to the Book of Allah: "And the messenger saith: O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk make this Qur'an of no account." (Quran, 25: 30). They justified turning away from the Book of Allah - the reverse of salat - by asserting that tradition, too, is "revelation," and even that tradition "contained" the revelation of the Book of Allah. The treatment of traditions as revelation was to equip tradition with the authority "to judge the Book of Allah." It was to enable tradition to rectify putative "flaws" in revelation. These "flaws" allegedly encompass "ambiguity," "incompleteness" and "incoherence" (contradictions). For example, it is alleged that revelation features "unclear" verses. It is also asserted that revelation does not provide "detail" on the right way to pray. These assertions are in defiance of revelation presenting itself as "clear," "detailed," and "coherent." The effort to "explain," render revelation "clear," "detailed," and "coherent" is predicated on a rejection of key features of revelation: clarity, completeness, and coherence. In so far as efforts to "explain" revelation by recourse to tradition resulted in an "eclipse" of revelation by tradition, the relationship between tradition and revelation requires rethinking. It requires an epistemological paradigm shift. For the traditional paradigm diverted the umma from following revelation to following tradition. The paradigm shift required is the shift from a prophet-centric paradigm to a paradigm centred on Allah. The relationship between reason and revelation is the subject of extensive enquiry. What is the right way to use reason to understand revelation? Traditional Muslims are reticent to use reason. They are taught that it is wrong to use reason in matters of religion. To be a Muslim, we are exhorted, requires the sacrifice of reason on the altar of tradition. The prophet allegedly warned against reason-based exegesis of revelation, referring to it as a form of non-belief. But this advice appears to go against the teaching of revelation, that exhorts us to do exactly the reverse, to use reason. May we assume that traditional ulema understood everything in the right way? Especially if their methodology precluded recourse to reason? Are we to believe that there is no room for further reflection? The Mutazilites (rationalists) were faulted for allegedly treating reason as greater than revelation. The traditionists, however, treat not just tradition but also the rulings of clerics as possessing greater weight than revelation. For traditionists assert that traditions as well as their rulings possess the power to "abrogate" and even "supersede" the rulings of revelation. This is problematic. Thus it is necessary to examine the issue of the relationship between revelation, reason, and tradition. For the knowledge of this relationship was tainted by a "breakdown of reasoning."