above the attributes of bodies, just as they themselves make this the foundation of their religion. Since this was not the case, it is clear that faith can be attained without this approach. Indeed, the finest members of this community, and those most knowledgeable about Allah, possessed faith without it.

If anyone subsequently says that knowledge of the truth of revelation can only be attained through this approach or similar newly devised approaches, the falsity of his statement is self-evident from the religion of Islam. It is also clear that criticizing what these approaches signify and entail, and giving precedence to revelation when it conflicts with them, does not constitute criticism of the rational proofs upon which revelation rests. Rather, it constitutes criticism of matters that revelation neither requires nor depends upon. This is precisely what was to be demonstrated.

Thus, giving precedence to revelation when it conflicts with such supposedly rational approaches entails no objectionable consequence.

[The invalidity of the speculative theologians’ appeal to the story of Abraham, the Friend of Allah, in support of their position]

One remarkable matter is that many of the Jahmiyyah, who deny the divine attributes and acts ن, and those who follow them in denying divine acts, invoke the story of Abraham, the Friend of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as evidence for this. This was mentioned by Bishr al-Marīsī, many of the Muʿtazilah, and those who adopted it from them or from others who had adopted it from them, such as Abū al-Wafāʾ ibn ʿAqīl, Abū Hāmid, al-Rāzī, and others. They stated in their writings that this approach was the approach of Abraham, the Friend of Allah, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him, citing his words:

“I do not love those that set.” [Al-Anʿām: 76]

They said: “He thus inferred from setting—which is motion and change of position—that whatever undergoes it, such as the star, the moon, and the sun, had a beginning.”