even though our reason contradicts it, that would undermine the very basis on which we know you to be truthful. We therefore accept what is entailed by statements that contradict the apparent meaning of your words, and we turn away from your words, receiving neither guidance nor knowledge from them”—such a man would not be a believer in what the Messenger brought, nor would the Messenger accept this from him. Indeed, it is clear that, if this were permissible, anyone could refuse to believe anything the Messenger brought. For people’s reasoning differs, doubts are numerous, and Satan continually instils whispers in people’s souls. He could then instil in the hearts of many individuals ideas that contradict most of what the Messenger reported and commanded.

This has manifested itself among the Qarmatian esotericists, who rejected the outward meaning of most of the commands and reports he brought, claiming that reason contradicts this outward meaning explained by the Messenger.

They may then say:

“The outward meaning is addressed to the masses and the common people, until a person comes to know the reality”—which they claim contradicts what the Messenger explained—“at which point he is no longer obliged to obey his commands and may deny his reports.”

Muslims in general know, as a matter of necessity from the religion of Islam, that the position of the esotericists, which entails opposing the Messenger, is false.

Likewise, concerning what he reported about the resurrection and the hereafter, Muslim theologians have said that the philosophers’ position, which contradicts it, is known as a matter of necessity from the religion of Islam to be false.

The same applies to what the Messenger reported about Allah’s names and attributes: those who affirm the divine attributes know that the deniers’ position concerning them is known as a matter of necessity from the religion of Islam to be false.