pay no heed to their discourse. Rather, they are of two kinds: those who know how to dispel their specious arguments and expose their contradictions, and those who turn away from them—whether because they cannot refute them, because they are occupied with something they consider more important, or because they wish to prevent any involvement in such false discourse.

This is how people of knowledge and faith deal with those who argue falsely against sound innate disposition and revealed law. This is the correct approach, unlike that of their opponents, who challenge innate disposition and the Book with various purported proofs. They then claim that these are conclusive proofs that contradict revealed law, yet constitute its foundation, so that challenging them amounts to challenging revealed law itself. These people have altered the matter and turned it upside down, as we have explained in its proper place. They are unlike those who affirm self-evident, innate knowledge, knowledge conveyed through revelation, and whatever inferential arguments accord with these, rather than those that contradict them.

If these people have followed the true path, as he acknowledged on that supposition—for someone who dislikes what he stated as a rebuttal to them, not as a rebuttal to someone reflecting on his own or debating with another—then his statement:

“We must