sanctity whatsoever; nor does it offer any benefit or serve as proof. Your argument is therefore invalid.

The fourth point: You have explicitly stated in your book Nihāyat al-ʿUqūl and elsewhere that the Quran and revealed proofs may under no circumstances be used as evidence in matters of foundational doctrine. This is because using them as proof depends on ruling out any conflicting rational evidence, yet this absence cannot be known with certainty. Thus, the condition for using them as evidence cannot be known to have been met. Accordingly, whenever an apparent meaning is cited as proof, it can be said: “This meaning is not known with certainty, since establishing it depends on the absence of conflicting rational evidence.”

The fifth point: You have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that no textual proof yields certain knowledge. Thus, according to you, an apparent meaning yields no certain knowledge, whether or not rational evidence conflicts with it. Even if the apparent meaning is allowed to stand, it yields, in your view, only probable knowledge, which may not be used as proof in matters of foundational doctrine. Consequently, according to you, no verse indicating a matter of foundational doctrine may be cited as proof; rather, it must be classed among the ambiguous verses. On this basis, the Quran, in your view, is not divided into clear and ambiguous passages in this sphere. Yet even so,