correct. Yet there are other paths besides that one. Someone who follows a different path then comes along, dismisses it entirely, and rejects whatever truth it contains.

We have discussed elsewhere the question of reason’s judging things good or bad, and have examined it in detail. We explained the source of the error: both groups agree that goodness and badness, understood in terms of what is agreeable or disagreeable, may be known through reason. What is agreeable involves attaining something loved, sought, and enjoyed; what is disagreeable involves encountering something disliked, guarded against, and distressing.

Their agreement on this point is sound. They then mistakenly supposed, however, that goodness and badness as determined by the revealed law fall outside this framework. That is not the case; in reality, they come back to it. The Lawgiver, however, makes known what already exists and establishes what was absent. Thus, His declaring something good either discloses and explains it, or establishes features in actions and entities.

According to those who regard rulings as established attributes of actions and entities, declaring something good through the revealed law entails that what is good brings praise and reward, while what is bad brings blame and punishment. It is well known that praise and reward are agreeable to human beings, whereas blame and punishment are disagreeable to them.

Likewise, some in the two groups mistakenly supposed that affirming this with respect to Allah Most High was impossible, because those who held this mistaken view failed to distinguish between will, love,