As for the method of inspiration, the inspiration claimed in this matter is, for those who possess it, necessary knowledge that they cannot dismiss, or it rests on subtle evidence that admits of no refutation. Thus, it cannot be false.

As for deriving rulings through inspiration, that is another question, which does not belong here. Its discussion is connected with the discussion of juristic preference and reasoned opinion and their various forms: what one person means by juristic preference, another may mean by inspiration.

The discussion does not concern inspiration known to be invalid because it contradicts the evidence of sense perception, reason, and revelation, for such inspiration is false. Rather, it concerns what agrees with these forms of evidence and does not contradict them.

It is not impossible to acquire knowledge of the Creator’s existence and His Messenger’s truthfulness through inspiration. Anyone claiming that this is impossible must therefore provide evidence.

The paths to knowledge are themselves diverse. Knowledge of Allah is the greatest form of knowledge, and its reach is broader and greater than that of other forms. Whoever confines it to one particular path, without evidence warranting the exclusion of every other path, will not have his claim accepted. For the one who denies must provide evidence, just as the one who affirms must provide evidence.

However, someone whose denial is confined to the limits of his own knowledge is not disputed in that regard.

Thus, when he says, “I know of no other path,” or, “Neither I nor anyone I know has attained another path,” his denial concerns only his own knowledge and what he has known to exist; it does not negate things established in reality.