‘sophistry’ (1) has, in the parlance of the theologians, come to denote the rejection (2) of realities. There is no doubt that such rejection does in fact occur in many matters, for among the nations are those who deny numerous truths even after recognizing them—just as the Almighty says:

“They rejected them, although their own souls were convinced of their truth, out of wrongdoing and arrogance.” (3)

Many realities are likewise confused for many people, just as the senses or the intellect can err in a great number of things. All of this exists just as lying—whether deliberate or inadvertent—exists. As for an entire nation unanimously [denying] (4) all forms of knowledge and reality, or for each person within it to deny everything he has not himself perceived, this is akin to a nation agreeing to invent falsehoods for every report, or to brand every report a lie. It is well known that nothing of the sort has ever existed in fact (5). Our certainty that no nation of this description has ever existed is like our certainty that there has never been a people without birth or nourishment, a people who neither speak nor move, and the like—things we know human beings simply cannot be (6).

How much more so, when man is a living, speaking creature, and speech is the most evident of his indispensable attributes (7). The Exalted says:

“By the Lord of the heaven and the earth, it is indeed the truth, just as surely as you speak!” (8)

Speech is either informative or performative, and informative discourse is the foundation. Consequently, the claim that there exists a nation that affirms nothing that is reported unless they themselves perceive the very thing reported contradicts this fact. Given that, those dialecticians among the idolaters and the Samaniyyah who debated Jahm merely deluded him and confused him (9).