And the one who denies is required to furnish evidence just as the one who affirms is required to furnish evidence.

These objectors say, “Such questions must be decided with certainty; it is impermissible for us to speak about them on the basis of conjecture. Therefore, whenever no conclusive proof is forthcoming, we rule the matter to be non-existent.”

They were told in reply, “This very argument turns against you. When you negate something whose negation you do not actually know, you are speaking on conjecture; and when you pass a definitive judgment without possessing a definitive proof, you are treating matters that demand certainty without any grounds—whether your judgment be one of denial or of affirmation. Nowhere in the revealed or rational evidences is it stated that everything for which no textual or rational proof of affirmation exists must necessarily be denied, still less denied with certainty. In fact, your very claim to this effect is speech made without knowledge.

“It is for this reason that many speculative theologians have erred: they have denied numerous attributes, rulings, and actions of the Lord simply because they did not know of a conclusive proof establishing them, even though those matters are truly established. Others may well possess decisive evidence for them; and even were we to suppose that no human being at all had such knowledge, Allah still possesses knowledge that His servants do not. He has names He has reserved for Himself in the unseen realm and has not disclosed to people. Therefore, when the affirmation of an attribute is unknown, that does not oblige us to know that the attribute is absent; one may well consider its affirmation or its negation more probable, or one may simply remain undecided.”