It is well known that the purpose of discourse is to convey understanding. Yet this person has gained no understanding from it: he has derived the truth not from the discourse, but from his own reason. The meaning ordinarily conveyed by the discourse was not what it was intended to make him understand. As for the remote meaning into which he has construed it, he already knew it to be true independently of the discourse, which did not convey it in the usual way. Rather, he laboured greatly before he could regard the discourse as capable of bearing that meaning, while still not knowing whether the speaker had conveyed it through those words. Thus, according to these people’s position, the discourse of Allah and His Messenger has provided him with neither understanding nor clarification. Indeed, their position implies that the discourse of Allah and His Messenger has served only to mislead people, weary their minds, divide the believers, engender enmity and hatred among them, and enable those given to heresy and tyranny to attack the Quran and faith.

If, on the other hand, he has nothing that conflicts with the text—whether called an opinion, a rational conclusion, a demonstration, or the like—he still cannot be certain that no one’s reasoning contains anything that contradicts the report Allah conveyed to His Messenger. It is well known that the arguments termed rational have no fixed criterion defining them, nor are they confined to any particular kind. Indeed, every nation has things it calls rational conclusions.

Consider our own community in this regard: no period passes without some people introducing innovations that they claim are rational conclusions.