The reason for this is their concession that those doctrines which al-Ash'arī described as innovations in Islam are valid. Yet it can be shown that the position of al-Ash'arī and his followers is closer to sound reason than that of the Mu'tazilah, just as it can be shown that the position of the Mu'tazilah is closer to the clear dictates of reason than that of the philosophers. This, however, establishes only that a position is closer to reason and truth, not that it is actually true. This is useful to anyone debating a Mu'tazilite critic of the Ash'arīs or a philosophical critic of the Mu'tazilah: he can show his opponent that the position of those he criticizes is better than that of his own associates. For just as the closer someone is to the Sunnah, the closer his position is to scriptural evidence, so too is his position closer to rational evidence.

There is no doubt that this approach ought to be followed. Any position—or proponent—closer to the truth should be shown to be preferable to one further from it. Do you not see that when Allah Most High granted the Romans victory over the Persians—the former being People of the Book and the latter idolaters—the believers rejoiced in Allah’s granting victory to those closer to the truth over those further from it? Moreover, one who is closer to the truth can challenge