the Bedouin and Kurds, townspeople and villagers, and those whose understanding falls short of grasping subtle matters and detailed proofs?’

The answer is:

‘Yes, for none of those you have mentioned lacks the understanding or knowledge needed to recognize origination and an originator when observing the changes in the world: the increase, decrease, growth, and changing conditions that occur anew in its bodies, and the way a drop of semen takes form and passes from one state to another—even if he cannot express this by saying: “These are newly occurring phenomena; every crafted object must have a craftsman, and every piece of writing a writer.”

He knows that the transformation of a drop of semen into a human being or an animal is more wondrous than silver becoming a ring, wood becoming a bed or a door, or yarn becoming woven cloth, even if he cannot express this in the terminology of the speculative theologians or the language of those who engage in rational inquiry. Likewise, people distinguish a solitary report, which does not yield certain knowledge, from a mass-transmitted report, which does. They also recognize within themselves the difference between conjecture and acceptance on authority, on the one hand, and direct observation and certain knowledge, on the other, even if they cannot articulate all these distinctions.

Since this is so, all of them must have a means of knowing origination and an originator.’”

These are the words of Judge Abū Ya'lā and others among those who agreed with Judge Abū Bakr’s approach.

[Ibn al-Zāghūnī’s words on the obligation of rational inquiry]

Ibn al-Zāghūnī likewise stated this; he was among those who affirmed the obligation of rational inquiry