with them and drive them wherever he wishes, because they enable him to do so by obeying him and taking him as their ally.

The authority denied to him is the authority of proof. Iblīs had no proof by which to exercise authority over them; he merely called them, and they responded without any proof or evidence.

Second: Allah gave him no authority over them whatsoever to begin with. Rather, they themselves gave him power over them by obeying him and joining his army and party. He did not gain mastery over them through his own strength, for his scheming is weak. He gained mastery over them only through their own will and choice.

The point is that if someone’s greatest ally, dearest friend, and sincerest adviser comes to him, but he seizes him, his children, and his entourage and hands them over to his enemy, part of his punishment is that this very enemy should be given mastery over him.

[Surah al-Nahl (16): verse 125]
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in the best manner. Indeed, your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way, and He knows best those who are rightly guided.” (125)

Allah, Glorified is He, has made the different approaches to calling people correspond to their differing levels. An intelligent, receptive person who responds willingly, neither resisting nor rejecting the truth, is to be invited through wisdom.

A receptive person who shows some heedlessness and is slow to respond is to be invited through good admonition: commands and prohibitions accompanied by encouragement and warning.

A stubborn denier is to be engaged in argument in the best manner.

This is the correct meaning of this verse—not what someone enslaved to Greek logic claims: that wisdom means demonstrative syllogism, which is the way to address the elite; that good admonition means rhetorical syllogism, which is the way to address the common people; and that arguing in the best manner means dialectical syllogism—rebutting a contentious disputant’s objections through a dialectical syllogism whose premises are conceded.

This is false. It rests upon the foundations of philosophy and contradicts the foundations of the Muslims and the principles of the religion in many respects, which this is not the place to discuss.