The messengers are truthful, and their truthfulness is confirmed; reality can never be contrary to what they report. Those who oppose their words with their own reasoning possess ignorance and misguidance whose extent none but the Lord of Majesty can reckon. How, then, can that which has never been mistaken be opposed by that which has never been correct in opposing it?

If it is said: “If witnesses attest to a person’s uprightness, and that person subsequently accuses them of lying, then accepting his judgment against them undermines the very means by which his own uprightness was established.”

The reply is: This is not analogous to our case. The person whose uprightness was attested to may say either, “They are sinful people whose testimony must not be accepted,” or, “They were mistaken or lied in this particular testimony.” If he impugns their integrity without qualification, the corresponding case would be for revelation to impugn the validity of rational evidence altogether. But that is not the case: scriptural proofs do not impugn rational proofs as a category.

If, however, he challenges a particular testimony given by those who vouched for him, saying that they were mistaken in it, this does not contradict their attestation to his uprightness, as all rational people agree. Someone who vouches for a witness need not be incapable of error. Nor does his error in a particular testimony entail that he erred in attesting to someone’s uprightness or in his other testimony.

If someone whose uprightness has been attested to and vouched for says of some testimony given by the person who attested to his uprightness and vouched for him, “He was mistaken in it,” this does not harm him, as all rational people agree. Indeed, an upright witness’s testimony may be rejected because he is a party to the dispute