the validity of revelation depends, a fortiori. It is therefore impermissible to set these premises against the texts of the Quran and Sunnah and claim, “Conclusive rational proofs contradict the apparent meanings of the transmitted texts.” There is no rational proof here, conclusive or otherwise; at most, there is a claimant’s assertion of consensus.

When someone argues against them, citing the texts of the Quran and Sunnah to establish His rising above, descent, coming, arrival, and other such attributes, they claim that scriptural evidence cannot be used to establish these matters and that reason contradicts the scriptural evidence.

If, then, they acknowledge that nothing contradicts this evidence except their alleged proof, built upon a premise they claim is known through consensus, they ought to heed scriptural evidence stronger than this and cite instances of consensus clearer than this alleged consensus. This is especially so since the scriptural evidence affirming the attributes known through revelation and the subsistence of temporally originated events in Him is many times more abundant than the scriptural evidence establishing consensus as authoritative, and is clearer in what it establishes.

Thus, if the scriptural evidence affirming these attributes is stronger than that establishing consensus as authoritative, these texts cannot be opposed by the texts establishing the authority of consensus, let alone by consensus itself, much less by an argument built upon a premise