through demonstration, then either the Messenger informed the elite of these matters with demonstration, or without demonstration, or he did not inform them of them at all. It is well known that the messengers did not bring these demonstrations by which the philosophers establish the soul’s immateriality, its bliss and torment, and the existence of intellects and souls. Thus, either they refrained from reporting these matters, or they reported them without what he claims to be demonstration. On either supposition, it becomes clear that the Messenger did not follow the course he alleges, for he claims that the Messenger taught these matters to the elite but not to ordinary people.

Third, it may be said: Nothing the philosophers discuss is any harder for ordinary people to understand than what the apparent meaning of revelation conveys, even if their understanding of the proofs is deficient. Do you not see that the speculative theologians openly state their views to ordinary people, although their proofs are numerous and may be more abstruse than those of the philosophers? These are only a limited number of questions: the Necessary Existent and His action, the soul and its happiness and misery, the intellects and souls, and related matters. Which of these could not be openly stated to ordinary people, if it were true? It is therefore clear that the failure to state these matters openly is only because of the falsehood they contain, which contradicts innate human nature, revealed law, and the truth expressly stated by the religious Law.