for if the truth is what the negationists maintain, and the messengers spoke only in terms indicating its opposite, then—not only would they have failed to guide people and teach them the truth, according to the negationists—they would also have confused and deceived them. Indeed, they would have led them astray, made them ignorant, and plunged them into compound ignorance and layers of darkness, one above another, whether from knowledge they previously possessed or from simple ignorance. Alternatively, they would have bewildered them, filled them with doubts, and left them wavering, unable to distinguish truth from falsehood or guidance from error, since their words would have contradicted the paths to knowledge through reason and unveiling.

According to these people, the prophets’ words and discourse concerning the noblest branches of knowledge and the greatest sciences cause sickness rather than healing, misguide rather than guide, harm rather than benefit, and corrupt rather than reform. They neither purify souls nor teach them the Book and wisdom; instead, they debase souls and plunge them into error and doubt. Indeed, the words of someone who sometimes resorts to sophistry and sometimes explains matters clearly—as occurs in much of the discourse of speculative theologians and philosophers such as Ibn al-Khatīb, Ibn Sīnā, Ibn ʿArabī, and others like them—would be better than the words of Allah and His messengers. Thus, Allah’s words would not be the best speech, nor would His discourse be the most truthful. Rather, even some of the Quran of Musaylima the Liar, whose content is not itself false—although attributing it to Allah is a lie—but is of no benefit, such as his words:

“The elephant! And what will make you know what the elephant is? It has a long trunk. Indeed, that is among our Lord’s creation