which does not derive from sound reason, although he claims that it is rational and innate.

Anyone acquainted with the true nature of this subject will recognize that all the rational premises underlying the arguments of those who oppose the prophetic texts ultimately rest on their uncritical acceptance of their predecessors’ views, not on what is known by rational necessity or through the innate disposition. They thus counter what rational proofs have established must be accepted as true and is free from error with what rational proofs have established need not be accepted as true. Indeed, its susceptibility to error is known, and errors arising from it have been established in matters below the level of theology—let alone theology itself, where the errors of those who contradict the Messengers are known with certainty through both general and detailed proofs.

The purpose here is to highlight the principal criticisms that each group directs against the other’s method: those who deny divine elevation, or elevation together with other attributes, on the basis of denying corporeality. Thus, the leading speculative theologians, such as Abū ʿAlī, Abū Hāshim, and the judge