otherwise, speech would cease to convey meaning, and the Quran would cease to serve as proof.”

The reply is: This consequence applies to you; indeed, it is precisely what your position entails. For you, proof consists solely in rational evidence. If the Quran agrees with it, you rely on that evidence, not on the Quran; if the Quran contradicts it, you follow that evidence, not the Quran. The Quran is not used to learn what it signifies, nor is it cited as proof. Rather, it is either disregarded entirely, receiving no consideration whatsoever, or efforts are made to undermine its meaning by proposing possible interpretations, rather than to establish what it signifies.

Thus, according to your position, the Quran neither serves as proof nor conveys useful knowledge in this sphere. You accept it as proof only in subsidiary matters of probabilistic judgment. Yet in such matters, there is consensus that one may depart from one apparent meaning in favour of another, stronger apparent meaning. Here, however, you have maintained that one may not depart from a weaker apparent meaning in favour of a stronger one. Thus, on your view, the Quran is left in this sphere with no