Furthermore, if the discourse intended to guide us, clarify matters for us, and bring us out of darkness into light contains texts whose apparent meaning is falsehood and unbelief, and we are not intended to understand either their apparent or their underlying meaning—or are intended to understand their underlying meaning without any explanation of it in the discourse—then, on either assumption, we have not been addressed in words that make the truth clear, nor have we been informed that what this discourse signifies is falsehood and unbelief.

Their claim about the one addressing us amounts to this:

He neither explained the truth nor made it clear, despite commanding us to believe it. What he addressed us with, commanded us to follow, and instructed us to refer back to neither clarified nor disclosed the truth. Rather, its apparent meaning indicated unbelief and falsehood, while he intended us to understand something from it, or to understand from it something for which it contains no evidence.

It is self-evident that Allah and His Messenger are entirely free of all this, and that such claims belong to the same category as the statements of those who distort the texts and espouse heresy.

This is the argument that heretics such as Ibn Sīnā and others used against those who affirm the resurrection. They said:

“The texts concerning the resurrection are to be treated just like the texts concerning likening Allah to His creation and ascribing a body to Him.”

They claimed that the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not explain how matters truly stand, either regarding knowledge of Allah Most High or regarding the Last Day. What gave them the upper hand over these opponents was the latter’s agreement with them in denying the divine attributes. Had these opponents instead truly believed in the whole Book, the heretics’ objections would have been invalidated and their argument refuted.