and establish proofs. Rather, He is the Compeller, who bound hearts to their innate disposition and sustained them in accordance with their capacity. He imposed on them neither burdens beyond their ability nor excessive demands. Thus, He compelled recognition of His lordship and oneness, but did not compel any other knowledge, as the advocates of compulsion claim. Some speculative theologians maintain that all knowledge arises by necessity, but this is mistaken.

This is the position of most leading Mu‘tazilites, the advocates of compulsion, and some Shiites. Others maintain that all knowledge is acquired, which is likewise incorrect. This is the position of the Qadariyya, the remaining Mu‘tazilites, and others. As for the scholars of hadith and the adherents of the apparent meaning, they affirm both necessary and acquired knowledge.

The matter is as we have stated, and the correct position is as we have explained. Every doctrine contrary to the account we have set out is unsound and inconsistent. We explicitly declare its invalidity and point to the contradictions among the reports. Necessary knowledge admits of no variation, whereas acquired knowledge varies, and people differ in their attainment of it according to what we have described.

Since it is established that He alone is eternal, without beginning, that everything besides Him was brought into being, and that He compels them to union and passing away, their knowledge in this respect is necessary and innate. Likewise, when He compelled their recognition while they were minute particles and addressed them directly, outside the period of moral responsibility, that knowledge could not have been acquired. But when He sent His messengers, revealed His scriptures, and made Himself known through the words of His emissaries, this could not rightly be a matter of compulsion or necessity, for that would nullify