Safwān, Husayn al-Najjār, Dirār ibn ‘Amr, and others, for these men affirm divine decree while agreeing with the Mu‘tazilah in denying the attributes.

It is well known that the rational arguments advanced by the Mu‘tazilah and the Shī‘ah have no consistent standard. Indeed, Abū al-Husayn al-Basrī adopted an approach contrary to that of his teachers, claiming that knowledge of their origination is self-evident.

This and many more such examples show that there is no consistent standard governing the purported rational arguments said to contradict the scriptural texts. Rather, they belong to the realm of misgivings and passing thoughts that continually arise in people’s minds.

If someone allows that some of what Allah and His Messenger have reported may be contradicted by clear rational evidence, and that this evidence should take precedence, he cannot be sure that everything he hears from Allah and His Messenger does not fall into the same category. At most, he can say, “I know of no rational argument that contradicts this,” or, “I have not heard of one,” or, “I have not found one,” and so forth.

This alone does not rule out the actual existence of rational propositions that have not yet reached him. If he says, “Reason does not negate what I affirm,” he is asked:

“Do you mean that you know of no rational argument incompatible with it, or that you know it is impossible for reason to contain anything incompatible with it—even though you allow that reason may contain something that contradicts the Messenger’s reports?”

If you mean the former, that does not help you. If you mean the latter, your statement is not correct, because you have allowed that reason may contain something that contradicts the Messenger’s reports.