Shaykh Sa'id Foudah writes in النقد و التقويم (footnotes on p.31):
The gist of Imam al-Razi's statement is that definitive reason [al-aql al-qat'i] and definitive scripture [al-naql al-qat'i] don't ever clash or oppose each other. It's not possible to imagine the occurrence of contradiction.
Every rational proof is either:
1. definitive [qat'i]
2. or speculative [zhanni]
The same goes for scriptural proof - it's either:
1. definitive (in terms of its signification [dalalah] plus authenticity [thuboot])
2. or speculative (in one of the two or even both)
A clash between a rational proof and definitive scriptural proof can't be fathomed, but it can be in anything else. If a clash were to occur, then the definitive proof always takes precedence - be it rational or scriptural. The underlying reason in preponderance and precedence isn't the proof's being rational or scriptural - it is its being definitive (or not).
In case two speculative proofs clash, then the stronger one takes precedence.
That is the gist of Imam al-Razi's statement, as is clear. However, he only specifically discussed a situation where definitive rational proof clashes with speculative scriptural proof. The correct position is that it's necessary to give precedence to the definitive rational proof and not accept that so-and-so meaning (in scripture) is the apparent [zhahir] meaning. In fact, it isn't apparent at all, since there is evidence indicating that said meaning is impossible. Another option is to relegate the meaning to Allah [tafweed].
The gist of Imam al-Razi's statement is that definitive reason [al-aql al-qat'i] and definitive scripture [al-naql al-qat'i] don't ever clash or oppose each other. It's not possible to imagine the occurrence of contradiction.
Every rational proof is either:
1. definitive [qat'i]
2. or speculative [zhanni]
The same goes for scriptural proof - it's either:
1. definitive (in terms of its signification [dalalah] plus authenticity [thuboot])
2. or speculative (in one of the two or even both)
A clash between a rational proof and definitive scriptural proof can't be fathomed, but it can be in anything else. If a clash were to occur, then the definitive proof always takes precedence - be it rational or scriptural. The underlying reason in preponderance and precedence isn't the proof's being rational or scriptural - it is its being definitive (or not).
In case two speculative proofs clash, then the stronger one takes precedence.
That is the gist of Imam al-Razi's statement, as is clear. However, he only specifically discussed a situation where definitive rational proof clashes with speculative scriptural proof. The correct position is that it's necessary to give precedence to the definitive rational proof and not accept that so-and-so meaning (in scripture) is the apparent [zhahir] meaning. In fact, it isn't apparent at all, since there is evidence indicating that said meaning is impossible. Another option is to relegate the meaning to Allah [tafweed].