This is found in the writings of most of those whose discourse combines Sunnah and innovation. They undoubtedly refute certain claims made by the philosophers and others, but the philosophers also refute certain claims of theirs. Generally, they prevail over the philosophers through rational argument more often than the philosophers prevail over them. Yet the philosophers may advance false rational claims which these theologians accept, giving the philosophers leverage against them. The philosophers may also advance sound claims that accord with the revealed Law, only for these theologians to reject them. These theologians attain truth and justice only when they agree with the revealed Law. When they depart from it, the most they can do is counter unsound reasoning with unsound reasoning, and falsehood with falsehood. Thus, discerning philosophers remain in doubt, as do discerning people among these theologians: neither group attains the light of guidance.

Light and guidance are attained only by countering what is unsound with what is sound, falsehood with truth, innovation with Sunnah, misguidance with guidance, and lies with truthfulness.

This makes it clear that sound proofs never contradict one another, and that clear reason accords with authentic transmitted evidence.

I have witnessed remarkable instances of this. Rarely have I encountered a formidable rational argument advanced by an opponent of the revealed Law, and discerned its flaw and how to refute it, without subsequently finding that one of the leading authorities of that school had recognized and explained its flaw.