matters known through sensory perception and self-evident knowledge.

They said:

This differs from affirming the existence of two beings, neither of which is within the other nor spatially separate from it. This is asserted only by a group who say that they know it through reasoning, not self-evidently. They have received it from one another, so it is a position they have agreed upon. Hence, no one asserts it unless they have studied the statements of the proponents of negation.

As for acknowledging that Allah Most High is above all things and raising one’s hands towards Him, nations concur in saying and doing this without prior agreement or collusion.

Thus, either a large number of people can concur in contradicting self-evident truths, or they cannot. If they cannot, then this premise is established as self-evident, since many nations have concurred upon it without collusion. If they can, then their argument that this premise is not self-evident—on the grounds that a large number of people have denied it—fails. Once their argument that it is not self-evident fails, one of the two disputants is left saying that his premise is known to him self-evidently, while the other cannot refute his statement. The latter therefore has no rational argument establishing that the former’s statement is false, which is the point to be established.

How much more so when the proponents of negation claim neither innate, self-evident truths nor evidence from revelation