say that they use rational arguments to support what is known to be established through revelation. Revelation, then, is the foundation relied upon in the fundamentals of religion, while reason supports and assists it.

Thus these followers came to follow the same path as the speculative theologians of the Muʿtazilah and others, saying that revelation cannot be relied upon to determine what Allah may or may not be described with. Instead, they rely upon their own reason; whatever it does not affirm, they either deny or suspend judgment about.

This gave the Muʿtazilah hope of winning them over, and the philosophers hope of winning over both groups, because their hearts had turned away from what the Messenger brought and from seeking guidance through him. These followers began to set reason against revelation, just as the Muʿtazilah and the philosophers did. Al-Ashʿarī and the leading scholars among his followers did not take this approach. Rather, they agreed with the rest of Ahl al-Sunnah on the obligation to believe unconditionally everything brought by revelation and to challenge whatever contradicts it. They did not say:

“Revelation is not to be consulted concerning the divine attributes,”

nor did they say:

“Revealed evidence does not yield certainty.”

Rather, all these claims were introduced by later followers who inclined towards Muʿtazilism and philosophy. For al-Ashʿarī explicitly stated that believing the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, does not depend upon the argument from accidents, and that using this argument to establish the temporal origination of the world is among the innovations forbidden in the religion of the messengers.

Likewise, others who agree with him in denying acts subsisting in Allah may say that this