the necessary consequence, namely what is proved, is negated, that which entails it, namely the proof, is likewise negated. Reason is thus invalidated—and their inconsistency exposed, for they acknowledged the prophethood of the prophets, then said what entails its invalidation.

Moreover, rational proofs require acknowledgment of the prophethood of the prophets. To impugn their prophethood is therefore to impugn rational proofs. Besides entailing their own inconsistency, their position entails the invalidation of both rational and scriptural proofs, as well as the invalidation of prophethood. This is among the gravest forms of sophistry. Thus, some of the forms of sophistry inherent in their position have become clear, demonstrating its unsoundness, as have some of its contradictions, demonstrating their ignorance and the inconsistency of their doctrines.

If they say:

“We know nothing of what revelation establishes through its reports—or through its reports and other matters—unless we know with inescapable certainty that the Messenger reported it.”

The response would be:

“On that assumption, it must be said to you: whatever a person does not know with inescapable certainty that the Messenger reported, he must deny whenever he encounters what he takes to be a rational proof!”

If they say, “Yes,” it follows that anyone may reject as false whatever he does not know with inescapable certainty that the Messenger reported, even though someone else may know with inescapable certainty that the Messenger reported it. This would entail allowing the Messenger to be rejected as untruthful, denying truths established in reality, speaking without knowledge, and asserting falsehood with certainty.

If they say:

“We allow this only when a conclusive rational proof has been established.”

The response would be:

“This is false for two reasons: