For in that case, it may not be relied upon to affirm or deny anything. Thus, in every case, it is not necessary to give it precedence over revelation.

Any speculative theologian who claims that this is the only way to know the Creator and establish His Messenger’s truthfulness is among the most ignorant of people concerning both revelation and reason.

As for revelation, it is known that the first and foremost believers did not use this argument.

As for reason, the statement, “There is no proof other than this,” is a universal negative proposition: an assertion of an unrestricted negation. It asserts that no human being has any means of knowing the Messenger’s truthfulness other than this. Yet they have supplied no proof for this claim. Indeed, no one could know such a universal negation even if it were true—how much less when it is false!

The same applies to all the rational arguments they use to oppose revelation. There are only two possibilities: if they are sound, then the inference drawn through that particular rational approach is not valid. Its invalidity does not entail the invalidity of the proof for revelation, since revelation is supported by rational proofs other than that particular argument. If, however, they are invalid, then they are unsound rational arguments and do not constitute a foundation for revelation.

It is therefore necessary to understand what is meant by saying that reason is a foundation for revelation: what is meant is that it serves as evidence.

We have already shown that every rational argument that contradicts revelation is not a sound proof, let alone the proof establishing the validity of revelation. Yet before demonstrating this, we say: it is known that the evidence establishing the validity of revelation is not confined