The second includes knowledge of astrology, which consists mostly of conjectures that are no substitute for the truth: its errors outnumber its correct judgments, and its falsehoods outnumber its truths.”

These two categories differ from what he mentioned first, which he condemned because of its dangers, its difficulty, and people’s inability to grasp it.

All three differ from discourse that is itself false and groundless, for such discourse is blameworthy in itself. Whatever is false and does not accord with the truth is inherently blameworthy, unlike something that is difficult yet true: although it may be condemned in one respect, it may be praised in another. This differs from what a person cannot grasp or what offers no benefit. Of such things, it may be said that their harm consists in wasting time, like unbeneficial play and amusement, or like idleness and wasted time. But whenever they lead someone to believe that falsehood is truth and that lies are true, they fall into the category of what is inherently blameworthy.

Any discourse that contradicts the revealed texts of the prophets is inherently blameworthy and unquestionably false.

As for his statement:

“They discussed the spirit, divine decree, the attribution of justice and injustice to Allah, the intellect, and the soul,”

one might suppose that discussing these matters is condemned without qualification. That is not so. Rather, truthful and beneficial discussion of these and other matters is not condemned. What is condemned is false discourse, speaking without knowledge, and addressing truthful discourse to those unable to understand it.

As Ibn Masʿūd said:

“No man relates to a people something beyond their understanding without it becoming a source of confusion for some of them.”

And ʿAlī, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

“Speak to people about what they understand,