impugned both reason and revelation. This is the condition of those who said:

“If only we had listened or used our reason, we would not be among the inhabitants of the Blaze.”
[al-Mulk: 10]

If someone says, “We have only impugned the portion of revelation that conflicts with reason; we have not impugned all revelation,” the reply is: “Likewise, whoever gives revelation precedence has only impugned that portion of what is said to be reason—not all reason, nor the rational basis through which the validity of revelation is known.”

We say “what is said to be reason” because it is not sound reasoning, even if its proponents call it rational. For whoever opposes the Messengers, peace and blessings be upon them, has neither clear reason nor authentic transmitted evidence on his side. His only recourse is to cling to specious arguments based on reason or transmitted texts, just as the polytheists and Sabians among the philosophers and others cling to unsound rational arguments, and just as the adherents of altered and abrogated scripture cling to unsound arguments based on transmitted texts.

Allah Most High says:

“Those who deny Our signs are deaf and dumb, in darkness.”
[al-An‘ām: 39]

And He Most High says:

“Or do you think that most of them listen or use their reason? They are only like cattle; rather, they are even further astray.”
[al-Furqān: 44]

Thus, giving reason precedence over revelation entails the invalidity of both reason and revelation. Giving revelation precedence, however, does not entail the invalidity of revelation; rather, revelation remains intact for him.