They may then be told:

“We do not concede that an argument of this kind is the foundation upon which the Messenger’s truthfulness—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is known. Rather, this is an attempt to oppose the Messenger’s words with something that does not establish his truthfulness. Thus, the claim, ‘If we give revelation precedence, we thereby undermine its foundation,’ is invalid.”

Most of the premises they have presented are not conceded, and their invalidity is demonstrated in a detailed discussion elsewhere.

If one of them says, “We know the Messenger’s truthfulness only through this,” or, “We know of no proof establishing the Messenger’s truthfulness except this,” the reply is:

“We do not concede that this denial is valid. Not knowing of something does not amount to knowing that it does not exist. You reject some of what revelation has brought and claim that there is no proof of the Messenger’s truthfulness apart from your method. You have thus combined rejection of part of revelation with an unsupported denial, thereby opposing revelation without any rational proof whatsoever.”

If one of them asks, “What proof, then, establishes the Messenger’s truthfulness other than this?” the reply is:

“We need not explain it at this stage, although we do explain it elsewhere. Rather, it is enough for us to rebut the denial. We affirm, as a matter of necessary knowledge, that the early generations of the Muslim community and its leading scholars believed in the Messenger’s truthfulness without this method.”

This is further clarified by the fact that the most discerning of those opponents who advocate giving reason precedence over revelation have acknowledged what demonstrates that revelation is not founded upon a rational argument that contradicts any part of it. This is explained in: