There is no answer to this except to say: “Scriptural proof cannot be conclusive.” The response is that this claim, besides being false, is of no help. On this supposition, the conclusive proof must take precedence because it is conclusive, not because it is the foundation of scriptural evidence. Yet these people base their argument for giving rational proof precedence on reason being the foundation of scriptural evidence. This is false, as will be explained, Allah willing.

If a conclusive proof and a probabilistic proof are supposed to conflict, no rational person disputes giving precedence to the conclusive proof. But establishing that scriptural proof cannot be conclusive would be harder than stripping a thorny branch by hand.

Moreover, people agree that much of what the Messenger brought is necessarily known to be part of his religion, such as the obligation of acts of worship, the prohibition of indecency and injustice, the oneness of the Creator, the affirmation of the resurrection, and other teachings.

Now, someone might say: If a conclusive rational proof contradicts this, one of the two must take precedence. Giving precedence to this scriptural proof would undermine its foundation, while giving precedence to the rational proof would entail declaring the Messenger untruthful concerning what he is necessarily known to have brought. This is outright disbelief.

They must therefore answer this objection. The answer is that no conclusive rational proof can establish anything that contradicts this.

It thus becomes clear that whatever is established by conclusive scriptural proof cannot be contradicted by conclusive rational proof.

Many people fall into errors of this kind: they posit a supposition that entails certain consequences,