reasoning from this kind of evidence, what we choose and prefer is the approach already mentioned, for it uses reflective proofs—the approach of the early scholars of our community. In arguing from accidents, the speculative theologians merely followed the philosophers’ method and borrowed it from them. There is considerable disagreement concerning accidents: some deny them altogether, while others draw no distinction between them and substances, holding that accidents subsist independently just as substances do. Arguments based on accidents cannot be sound until this doubt has been cleared away. The approach we have followed is free from these defects and untainted by these doubts.”

He said: “Some of our teachers have approached this question by arguing from the premises establishing prophethood and the miracles of the prophetic mission. The evidence for these is acquired through sense perception by those who witness them, and through widely transmitted reports by those who do not. Once prophethood had been established, it became a foundation for accepting what he—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—called people to. This kind of argument is convincing for those whose understanding cannot encompass the various forms of the other proofs, and to whom the connection between proofs and what they establish is not clear. Allah will never burden a soul beyond its capacity.”