the Messenger, and of the soundness of the Book and Sunnah he brought, does not depend on any method that contradicts anything he brought. We also demonstrate that those methods are unsound, but showing that they are unnecessary is one matter, and showing that they are unsound is another.

The people of innovation first claim that these methods are necessary, then use them to oppose the scriptural texts. We therefore first demonstrate that they can be dispensed with, then demonstrate their unsoundness, and thirdly explain that sound rational methods—which are the scriptural proofs—are mutually entailing: the validity of either entails the validity of the other.

This goes beyond their merely not conflicting. Their not conflicting alone suffices to refute those who claim that they conflict.

Moreover, even supposing that some of them conflict with revelation, those that do are not the rational proofs by which we know revelation to be true.

All this demonstrates the falsehood of the claim that giving the Book and Sunnah precedence over whatever conflicts with them entails that revelation undermines its own foundation.

The method of Judge Abū Bakr and others like him does not include the division mentioned by Abū al-Husayn. Rather, he first stated that determining that something should come into being at one time rather than another requires a determining agent, and that events brought forward or delayed require one who brings them forward or delays them, without needing to say, “Coming into being is either necessary or not necessary.” This is sounder, more direct, and clearer.

Furthermore, the method of Abū al-Hasan al-Ash'arī in al-Luma' is better than