the soundness of that transmission. Rather, the most they can do is cite a line of reasoning that is merely conjectural, yielding nothing but surmise, and surmise can never stand against certainty.

Whatever Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—has brought can be known by any reflective, evidence-based inquirer with absolute, unshakable certainty. As for whatever contradicts it, there is no avenue by which anyone can attain sure knowledge of it; at best, all that may arise in his heart is conjecture or blind imitation, and neither of these overturns true knowledge. This, then, is an all-embracing principle, which the well-informed scholar will explain to each person in whatever terms best convey its meaning to the one addressed.

The point to be made here is this: whatever arguments people advance to oppose what is firmly established from Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—can never be backed by proof, whether scriptural or rational. This we know in broad outline, and we shall now present the matter in detail.

The evidence they invoke is of two kinds: either rational or transmitted.

1. Rational arguments: It is well known that the rational proofs which show the falsity of what the Christians assert are far clearer than the arguments they cite to demonstrate the truth of their religion. Should any of them—or of the Jews—advance a rational argument against some aspect of his creed, that argument is answerable. One response is to show that the same objection would necessarily apply to other prophets, for those prophets too came with that very point, or with something even weightier.