conveys every part of the message, so it is impossible for his reports to contradict one another, for they are all true. Otherwise, if he were untruthful in even a single word, he would not be Allah’s messenger, and nothing of what he attributes to Allah could be cited as evidence. Accordingly, to liken the claim of someone who says he is Allah’s Messenger to the admission of a man who states that his bond has been fully settled is a faulty analogy. The document had served as evidence for its holder, who then collected what was due and later acknowledged its settlement.

The one who says he is Allah’s Messenger is either truthful or lying, and under either supposition it is impermissible to accept some of his words as proof while discarding others.

Should someone argue, “My purpose is to show that he contradicts himself, that his very words prove he was not sent to us, and that our religion is true—just as the claimant’s own words prove that the creditor’s right has been fulfilled,” we reply: If his words are self-contradictory, then he is no messenger, and in that case you may not use anything he transmitted from Allah as evidence. This differs from the person who admits payment, for his confession is accepted against himself; he is a witness against himself regarding the settlement. A man’s confession and testimony against himself are admissible, even if he is a disbeliever and an open sinner, whereas his testimony about Allah and His commandments is not.

Thus, whoever likens a person’s confession against himself to the statement of one who says, “I am Allah’s Messenger,” shows the utmost ignorance of analogy, reasoning, and valid comparison; for the confession of the one who admits