based on what is most probable. If that is what they meant, this is utter bankruptcy in the knowledge of Allah Most High. But they may have meant that the certainty derived from the categorical syllogisms and analogical arguments applied to existing things cannot be attained with regard to Allah Most High. Yet these have a greater, more fitting, and more appropriate claim to the attributes of perfection that are affirmed, and to freedom from the attributes of deficiency that are denied. It is well known that the extent and nature of that superiority and excellence cannot be determined through such reasoning. We would then have no way of attaining certainty about the reality indicated by rational inference.

If this is what they meant, it is a sound position on their part. Whoever says this has spoken the truth and given inferential reasoning its due, for it can yield no knowledge of lordship beyond this: general rather than detailed knowledge.

In any event, one may have no need for these forms of inference and these speculative methods. They can instead be dispensed with through the self-evident, necessary knowledge of the innate disposition, both in general and in particular, and through the signs that are seen and heard. The knowledge possessed by the great majority of people comes through these means, and it is firmer and more deeply rooted than the knowledge of those philosophers. For those philosophers have doubts, misgivings, and various forms of vacillation and confusion that are not found among ordinary people, let alone those endowed with understanding.