[The response in several ways: The first]

The purpose is to show that the truth of revelation can be established by a rational proof that does not contradict what revelation entails. As for other proofs, a person is not obliged to reason from them. Once something is known to be true through one rational proof, its truth need not be established through every proof.

It has thus become clear that a person can believe what the Lawgiver has declared concerning Allah’s names, attributes, and acts—including affirming Allah’s exaltedness above creation and the attributes known through revelation—without this contradicting the rational proofs that form the foundation for knowing revelation to be true. Any objection raised through that supposedly rational method therefore relies on methods upon which knowledge of revelation’s truth does not depend. Giving revelation precedence over them does not undermine the foundation through which its truth was established. This is precisely the point to be demonstrated.

[The second]

It may be said:

Those methods did not establish the truth of revelation without qualification. Rather, they established the Lawgiver’s truthfulness only in what he reports apart from the attributes and acts that those methods deny. Hence, they do not establish the Messenger’s truthfulness without qualification.

It is well known that the proof upon which faith rests must establish that the Messenger is truthful in everything he reports, without any qualification or restriction. If a proof establishes his truthfulness only on condition that what he reports does not conflict with what that proof entails, its implication becomes: “The Messenger is to be believed where he does not disagree with me, but not where he disagrees with me.”

It is well known that this is not an acknowledgment of the truth of his message, for the Messenger cannot contradict any truth, nor does he report anything that reason deems impossible and rejects,