corruption and distortion.

It may be objected: You have repeatedly stated that people are compelled to acknowledge that the Maker of the world is above. Undoubtedly, many groups among the speculative theologians, hadith scholars, jurists, and Sufis have said this. Indeed, it is among their best-known arguments and proofs, both among their specialists and their ordinary followers. Yet this entails that acknowledging the Maker is innate and necessary. For if acknowledging His being above is innate and necessary, then acknowledging Him must, all the more, be innate and necessary. Knowledge of the bearer of an attribute cannot come after knowledge of the attribute, and knowledge of the intended proposition cannot come after knowledge of its individual terms. Thus, if knowledge of the meaning of our statement, “He is above,” is necessary knowledge, then knowledge of Him and of the meaning of “above” must, all the more, be necessary.

But this is not the case, for the Maker is acknowledged only through rational reflection and inference, as is well known among scholars versed in rational inquiry. Hence their disagreement over the first obligation: is it knowledge itself, or the rational reflection that leads to it? There are two views on this.