If, however, they intended the first alternative—which is the account transmitted by a group (1) of the scholars of doctrinal discussion, who report that the Samanīyah deny every kind of knowledge save what is grasped by the senses, and therefore reject mutawātir reports (2), empirical findings, self-evident rational necessities, and so forth—then this report cannot be accepted as universally true for all rational people (3), whether in city or village. What is related (4) of Jahm’s debate with them in fact shows that they acknowledged other kinds of knowledge. The life of the children of Adam and their worldly livelihood can only be sustained (5) through mutual cooperation (6) in speech—whether conveying news or other information—and in deeds. Each person must concede that he was born, that he had a father who lay with his mother, and a mother who bore him, even though he did not perceive any of that with his five outward senses; he was merely informed of it and felt an innate inclination to accept what he had been told. The same applies to his knowledge of other relatives—uncles, maternal uncles, grandparents, and so on—for no nation among humankind denies such acknowledgment. Likewise, no one denies that he was once an infant who grew up through nourishment and care until reaching adulthood, although, when grown, he retains no sensory memory of that period before discernment. Indeed, no group among mankind rejects awareness of their inner states—such as hunger, satiety (7), pleasure, pain, contentment, anger, love, and hate, and other matters that are not grasped by the five external senses; they also know that other (8) human beings experience the same.