they are thereby bearing witness against themselves that they possess no knowledge, and a person’s own testimony against himself is admissible.

As for the assertion they themselves advanced—claiming that its meaning is attested by the words of the prophets or by rational proof—they are duty-bound to spell out exactly what meaning they intend and to show that either Scripture or reason truly indicates it.

If they then say, “We cannot even conceive the meaning of the very statement we made,” they have admitted that they are speaking about Allah without knowledge, and that is forbidden to them.

Should they contend, “The speech of the prophets points to it,” their utmost recourse is to seize upon the ambiguous texts. At that point they must be required to explain those ambiguous passages and to reconcile them with the clear and decisive ones in a sound, verifiable manner.

If instead they say, “This is beyond human reason; we do not understand it,” they are told, “Then leave the ambiguous text alone—do not cite it as evidence, and do not assign to it a meaning which you yourselves claim you cannot fathom.”

Whenever a statement is firmly established from the prophets and a group declares, “We do not understand it,” they have merely confirmed their own ignorance.

But if they go on to paraphrase the prophets’ words with their own formulation, saying, “This is what they meant,” while expressing it in different wording, they must be challenged to clarify that meaning. They are told, “If you truly understand what you have just articulated, then explain it; but if you do not understand it, do not speak without knowledge.”