we have explained at length elsewhere; yet they themselves pronounce anyone who says such a thing a disbeliever and use pure reason to prove its invalidity.

If the objector then claims, “This lies above the intellect,” they will not accept the excuse. And, in fact, every one of their sects debates the others rationally; whenever one of them pleads, “Our doctrine is beyond reason,” the others refuse to admit it.

Now, if that were a valid rejoinder, nothing in theology should ever be examined by the intellect. Every purveyor of falsehood could then utter whatever he wished and simply say, “My words are above reason,” just as the proponents of ḥulūl (divine indwelling), ittiḥād (union), and waḥdah (absolute oneness) do when they claim that the existence of the Creator is identical to the existence of the creature. They, too, insist that this is “above the intellect” and can be known only through mystical tasting, not through hearing or reason.

The second angle is this: whatever the intellect is unable to conceive, if the prophets—peace be upon them—have reported it, we accept it from them, for they possess knowledge that others are incapable of attaining. None of these assertions, however, was ever voiced by the prophets. They are merely the inventions of the various Christian sects themselves, spun from their own opinions under the pretense that they had extracted them from certain scriptural phrases.

Accordingly, one asks anyone who holds such views: Do you actually conceive what you are saying, or do you fail to picture, understand, and grasp it at all?