The purpose here is to draw attention to the source of the disagreement concerning obligation, just as we have drawn attention to the disagreement concerning the order of obligations.

As for attaining knowledge, many people say: “Knowledge can only be attained through reason.” They may go so far as to establish nothing concerning Allah Most High’s attributes, whether by affirmation or negation, except through reason. They explicitly state that the texts conveyed by the messengers cannot be used as evidence to affirm or negate any of Allah Most High’s attributes. This is the position held by some of the Mu‘tazilah and their followers among the later Ash‘arīs. They regard the foundations of religion as purely rational matters that are not known through revelation.

They may then single out rational methods that are invalid according to both reason and revelation, such as the method of accidents, the method of composition, and the method of particularization. All the foundational principles of those who negate divine attributes come back to these three.

Others oppose them, saying: “Knowledge can only be attained through revelation, not through reason.” They may even say: “It is impossible to attain it through reason.”

We have explained elsewhere that rational and revealed proofs necessarily entail one another: each entails the validity of the other. Rational proofs entail the truthfulness of the messengers in what they report, while revealed proofs explain the rational means by which Allah, His oneness and attributes, and the truthfulness of His prophets are known.

Yet some people have supposed that revealed proofs contain nothing rational, and that rational proofs