Furthermore, even if revelation were assumed to contradict a particular rational proof establishing its validity, the rational proofs establishing the validity of revelation are many and varied. The invalidity of one does not entail the invalidity of the others. This differs from revelation itself, which these proofs establish: if it were assumed to be invalid, all the rational arguments establishing its validity would necessarily be invalid as well.

Moreover, those who oppose revelation on rational grounds claim that they came to know its validity through certain rational arguments. Thus, the Jahmiyyah, the Mu‘tazilah, and those who agree with them claim that the validity of revelation can be known only through the proof that bodies originated in time. This proof rests on the premises that bodies necessarily possess accidents, and that accidents originate in time because a beginningless succession of events is impossible.

Yet it is necessarily known in the religion of Islam that knowledge of the Messenger’s truthfulness does not depend upon this proof. Those who believed in Allah and His Messenger, and whose faith the Quran attested—the first and foremost among the Emigrants and the Helpers, and those who followed them in righteousness—did not establish the Messenger’s truthfulness through this proof.

Thus, even if this proof were assumed to be sound, not using it would not invalidate faith in the Messenger. Rather, his truthfulness can be established through other proofs, such as those used by the early generations and the great majority of the Muslim community.

Accordingly, if this particular rational argument were assumed to contradict the Messenger’s account, giving his account precedence would not undermine a foundation without which revelation could not be known. How much more so, then, if this proof is invalid?