People have differed over which is more perfect: hearing or sight. One group, including Ibn Qutayba, held that hearing is more perfect because of the breadth and comprehensiveness of what can be known through it.

The majority held that sight is more perfect. Someone who is informed is not like someone who sees firsthand. Not everything that is directly observed can be conveyed in a report, nor is knowledge acquired through reports like knowledge acquired through direct observation, even when there is no doubt that the report is true. Still, knowledge of the very object of observation is not acquired before seeing it in the same way as through seeing it.

The correct conclusion in this matter is that direct observation is more complete and perfect, while hearing is more general and comprehensive. Through hearing and reports, one can therefore know many, many times more than one can know through direct observation and sight. Hence, all knowledge of the unseen comes only through hearing and reports. Then what was unseen becomes directly witnessed, what was reported is seen firsthand, and certain knowledge becomes certainty through direct sight.

The point here is that reports, too, convey knowledge only in conjunction with sensory perception or reason. If the thing reported has already been observed, it has already been known through sensory perception. If it has not been observed, something resembling it in certain respects has been observed; otherwise, nothing could be known through reports. Thus, reports convey knowledge only after sensory perception and reason. Just as reason comes after sensory perception, reports come after reason and sensory perception. Thus, conveying a report entails this