did they defend it by a just standard. Rather, they may counter one unsound argument with another. The enemies of the faith may advance a specious argument against what the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—brought, such as the eternalists’ argument for the eternity of the heavens. They then counter it with another unsound argument, such as their inference that the heavens had a beginning based on the argument from accidents and attributes.

Protecting the beliefs of ordinary people through such discourse is like protecting them from injustice through punishments that themselves involve transgression. Whoever supposes that later generations were more knowledgeable than the early generations about the truth and its proofs, or more skilled in debating it, is like someone who claims that they were more accomplished in knowledge, jihad, and the conquest of lands. Both suppositions are characteristic of those who know neither the true nature of religion nor the condition of the earliest generations.

This resembles the discourse of the Rāfidah and other fabricators, whose statements entail denying the truth and affirming falsehood. In the lies they relate and the truths they deny in their statements, they are like those who engage in false theological discourse in their inquiry and reasoning, such as the Jahmiyyah, who deny the truth and affirm falsehood in rational matters.

For this reason, more than one of the early generations associated the Jahmiyyah with the Rāfidah; these two are the worst followers of deviant inclinations. The theological discourse condemned by the early generations was, in their estimation, graver than bearing false witness and violating what is right.