whatever accords with their own position as unequivocal and whatever accords with their opponent’s position as ambiguous is explained solely by their belief that rational evidence supports their position rather than their opponent’s. It is not because they believe that anything in the verses themselves makes the passages they cite unambiguous, unlike those cited by their opponents. For incidental ambiguity arises on both sides: these verses have been unclear to some people, and those to others. As for general, inherent ambiguity arising from what the wording signifies, its recognition is common to all; a passage cannot be ambiguous to one group and unequivocal to another, or vice versa.

If each group regards its own position as unequivocal because, in its view, it accords with rational evidence, then this is the very principle by which he distinguished the unequivocal from the ambiguous, since every group claims that reason is on its side. Thus, what he rejected is precisely what he himself affirmed.