He went on to say:

“Since the only path to the knowledge sought is to take acts as evidence, and acts furnish evidence only through the need inherent in human nature and the utter dependence of created beings, the greater that dependence and helplessness, the fuller and firmer the certainty:

‘When distress befalls you at sea, those you call upon are forgotten, except Him.’

Hence:

‘Who answers the distressed when he calls upon Him?’

Knowledge gained through what states of dire need reveal is more firmly rooted in the heart than knowledge resulting from reflection when one is free to choose.”

[Ibn Taymiyyah’s commentary]

I say: All of this is al-Shahrastānī’s statement. He is one of the leading later scholars of rational inquiry and among those best acquainted with doctrinal positions. He explicitly stated that knowledge of Allah is not counted among theoretical matters requiring demonstration, and that innate human nature, through its necessary awareness and immediate intuition, testifies to the wise Maker—and so forth. He also stated that the self-evident propositions ultimately reached through arguments based on the contingency or temporal origination of contingent beings fall short of what human nature itself attests: that the human being inherently needs One who governs his affairs.

As for his statement that denial of the Maker is not a recognized position held by any exponent of a doctrine: although it is not a widely known doctrine professed by any of