to one particular rational proof; rather, other rational proofs also establish the validity of revelation. Thus, the invalidity of that rational proof does not entail the invalidity of revelation’s foundation. How much more so if that proof is itself unsound!

If it is said:
“We do not invalidate revelation by giving precedence to reason; rather, we suspend judgment on it or give it an alternative interpretation.”

The reply is:
If revelation does not indicate the opposite of what you call rational, then this is not the point at issue. If it does, suspending judgment on it nullifies what revelation indicates, and that amounts to invalidating it. When revelation indicates something, disregarding its indication is like disregarding what reason indicates.

Suppose someone were to say:
“I know what the Lawgiver intends. As for the rational argument, I suspend judgment on it because I do not understand whether it is sound or unsound. I am therefore not certain that it conflicts with what revelation indicates. I have seen those who claim to possess rational arguments disagreeing, so I have no confidence in this rational argument that contradicts revelation.”

This would be more reasonable than saying:
“Allah and His Messenger have not made the truth clear. Rather, they have spoken falsehood implying disbelief, without clarifying what was intended.”

For anyone who gives precedence to a rational argument when a conflict arises must say:
“Revelation indicates something contrary to reason, either explicitly or through its apparent meaning.”

Otherwise, if revelation conveys nothing that conflicts with reason in any way, no contradiction is possible. Thus, what his statement really amounts to is:
“Allah and His Messenger have set forth what is falsehood and misguidance