As for the prophetic, Sunni method of the early generations—the method of Muhammad and the revealed Law—only someone well versed in it and in his statements that contradict it can use it to debate them. Such a person will then recognize the falsity of their views through clear rational evidence that accords with authentic transmitted texts.

Likewise, anyone who delves deeply into these theological and philosophical doctrines used to oppose the scriptural texts, without fully knowing those texts and their implications, thoroughly understanding their contents, and knowing the views that contradict them, will never attain a certainty in which he can rest assured. These doctrines bring him only doubt and bewilderment.

Indeed, you find these eminent, highly accomplished men—who claim that their rational arguments conflict with the scriptural texts and must take precedence over them—bewildered over fundamental questions concerning God. They are bewildered even over the existence and true nature of the Lord, Exalted is He. Their bewilderment has led one to contradict himself, as al-Rāzī does, and another to suspend judgment, as al-Āmidī does. They list several views within which, they claim, the truth must lie, yet all of them are false.

It has been reported that some leading speculative theologians held that the proofs were of equal weight, and that the evidence on both sides was evenly balanced, so that truth could not be distinguished from falsehood. It is well known, however, that they said this only about the lines of argument they themselves pursued.