Since this is so, if the rational evidence establishing the Messenger’s truthfulness is opposed by what is claimed to be rational evidence contradicting a particular report of his, as well as the evidence establishing his truthfulness in general, then one of these two kinds of purported rational evidence must be false.

This argument may be completed as follows:

The Eleventh Argument: Much of What Is Called Evidence Is Not Evidence

The Eleventh Argument:
Much of What Is Called Evidence Is Not Evidence

Much of what people call rational or revealed evidence is not actually evidence; rather, someone merely supposes it to be evidence.

Rational people agree on this: what is called rational or revealed evidence may not, in reality, be evidence.

We therefore say:

Those who follow the Book and the Sunnah—the Companions, the Successors, and their successors—agree on what revealed teaching establishes concerning faith in Allah Most High, His names and attributes, the Last Day, and related matters. They did not dispute that it establishes these things. Nor did those who disputed these matters after them disagree that revelation indicates them.

Their disagreement concerned only this question: does any rational evidence oppose revelation and invalidate what it entails? Apart from that, they all agree that the Book and the Sunnah affirm the names and attributes, and affirm what they teach concerning the prophetic mission and the Hereafter.

Those who dispute with the affirmers, denying acts and attributes, do not dispute that the revealed texts indicate affirmation, or that revelation contains no apparent evidence for negation.