This is why those who find a conflict between the evidence of reason and transmitted revelation are bewildered, doubtful, and unsettled. They have no unequivocal rational evidence free from an equally strong counterargument; indeed, they disagree, doubt, and waver over the very rational arguments with which they oppose transmitted revelation.

All of this makes clear that unequivocal rational evidence contains nothing that can be given precedence over what the messengers brought. For the signs and proofs establish that the messengers are truthful, that they say nothing about Allah except the truth, and that they are protected from error in the reports and directives they convey from Allah. No error can be allowed to persist in what they report from Him, as all who acknowledge the messengers—Muslims, Jews, Christians, and others—agree.

It therefore follows that everything the Messenger reports from Allah is true and correct; nothing in it can contradict either rational evidence or evidence from transmitted revelation.

Whenever someone who believes in the Messenger knows that he has reported something of this kind, he is absolutely certain that it is true, that the underlying reality cannot differ from what he has reported, and that no conclusive evidence, whether rational or transmitted, can contradict it. Whatever is thought to oppose it consists only of untenable arguments and specious objections of the kind advanced by the Sophists.

Since reason, knowing the Messenger to be truthful, has testified to this and to the impossibility of any valid proof contradicting what he reports, that same reason testifies that everything contrary to the Messenger’s report is false. Thus, reason and transmitted revelation together testify to the invalidity of the reasoning that opposes transmitted revelation.