requires giving precedence to revelation. This is indeed obligatory, for if they were referred instead to men’s intellects, opinions, analogies, and proofs, this would only increase their disagreement and confusion, doubt and uncertainty.

For this reason, Allah Most High says:

“Mankind was one community; then Allah sent the prophets as bearers of good tidings and warners, and sent down with them the Book in truth to judge between people concerning that over which they differed.”

[al-Baqarah: 213]

Allah thus sent down the Book to judge between people concerning their differences, for disputes and disagreements among people cannot, in every case, be settled except by a Book sent down from heaven. Undoubtedly, some people may know through reason what others do not, even if they cannot explain it to them. Yet it is utterly inconceivable that revelation should contradict what is known through clear reason. Indeed, authentic transmitted revelation never conflicts with clear rational knowledge.

I have examined this across the matters over which people disagree, and have found that what contradicts authentic, explicit texts consists of specious arguments whose falsity can be known through reason. Indeed, reason establishes the truth of their opposite, which accords with revelation.

I have examined this in the major questions concerning the foundations of religion, such as Allah’s oneness and attributes, divine decree, prophethood, resurrection, and other matters. I have found that revelation never contradicts what is known through clear reason. Rather, what is alleged to contradict it is either a fabricated hadith or a weak inference. Neither would qualify as evidence even without opposition from clear reason; how, then, could it do so when clear rational knowledge contradicts it?

We know that the Messengers do not convey matters that reason deems impossible, but rather matters that bewilder it. They do not convey what reason knows cannot be, but what reason is incapable of knowing.