the Hashwiyyah, because these are matters requiring certain knowledge, which hadith does not provide; following scriptural texts as a general principle in foundational inquiries of speculative theology is mere filler, because those texts do not suffice for that purpose.

The issue thus comes down to one of two things: doubt concerning either the chain of transmission or the text. Either they attribute to the Messenger something he is not known to have said—as with solitary reports—and maintain that these reports yield certain knowledge; or they regard their understanding of the wording as certain knowledge when it is not, given the possible interpretations of textual evidence.

There is no doubt that this is the mainstay of every heretic and hypocrite: it nullifies knowledge of the message with which Allah sent His Messenger. Sometimes he says, “We do not know that they said this,” and sometimes, “We do not know what they meant by these words.” Once knowledge of their statements or their meaning is denied, no knowledge can be gained from them. He can then advance whatever doctrines he wishes, secure against being challenged with reports from the prophets, for he has entrusted that frontier to those two guards, who repel the Messenger’s troops from him and assail anyone who invokes those reports as evidence.

This very position constitutes an attack on prophethood itself, even if he professes reverence for the prophets and acknowledges their perfection: his is the acknowledgment of someone who receives no knowledge from them. In his eyes, the Messenger is thus like a caliph accorded recognition on coins and in sermons—merely in form and wording, in writing and speech—without any command or prohibition of his being obeyed. He possesses the outward form of leadership through the coinage and sermons assigned to him, but not its reality.

As for this arrangement—even if many kings have deemed it permissible because some caliphs were unable to