follow and whose judgment you must accept, even if you were not mistaken in the independent judgment and reasoning by which you determined that he was a learned mufti whom you were obliged to follow.”

This is despite the layman’s knowledge that the mufti may err. Reason, however, knows that the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is protected from error in what he reports from Allah Most High and cannot err in this. Thus, reason’s giving precedence to the statement of one protected from error over its own contrary reasoning is even more warranted than the layman’s giving precedence to the mufti’s statement over his own contrary opinion.

Likewise, suppose people know and testify that someone is an expert in medicine, identification by physical signs, estimating fruit yields, valuing goods, or similar matters. If it is established before the judge that he possesses expertise they lack, or that he is more knowledgeable than they are in these matters, and the witnesses who attested to such experts’ competence subsequently dispute their judgments, then the judgments of the experts in medicine, identification by physical signs, estimating fruit yields, and valuation must take precedence over those of the witnesses who testified on their behalf—even if they say:

“We vouched for these people, and their competence was established through our statements. Referring the disputed matter to them rather than to us undermines the very basis on which their judgments were established.”

Similarly, some people have said:

“Reason vouches for revelation and attests to its trustworthiness. If revelation is given precedence over reason, this discredits that which vouched for it and attested to its trustworthiness, thereby discrediting revelation itself.”