you are told:

Everyone who knows the Messenger’s intent with certainty says the same: no rational proof can contradict it. The question then remains: Is there conclusive evidence from transmitted revelation concerning the disputed matter or not? Your rejection of the evidence from transmitted revelation on the basis of this rule is therefore invalid and self-contradictory.

The second point:

If you reject from transmitted revelation only that which you do not know the Messenger intended, while accepting what you know he intended, then your appeal to reason’s conflict with transmitted revelation remains an invalid argument with no force.

Third:

In many instances, you claim that the Messenger brought a particular teaching and that we know this with inescapable certainty, while your opponents claim that conclusive rational proof establishes its contrary, as in the case of the resurrection and other matters. Likewise, those who dispute with you concerning Allah’s exaltedness and attributes say: “We know with inescapable certainty that the Messenger brought this teaching.” Indeed, the case here is even stronger, as explained at length elsewhere.

[Sixth]

Sixth:

This can be countered by saying: “Rational evidence is valid only on condition that it does not conflict with revelation, for reason is weak and incapable, and specious arguments frequently assail it. In these mazes and perplexities in which rational thinkers have floundered, I do not trust reasoning that conflicts with revelation.”

Clearly, this is more deserving of acceptance than the first position, on the grounds stated in:

[Seventh]

Seventh:

Namely, reason cannot serve as independent evidence concerning the details of divine matters and the Last Day. I therefore do not accept what it indicates unless revelation confirms it and agrees with it, for revelation is