But this is better. Because their books were not written for a specific Muslim so that betrayal would enter them. There is no need for any of them to betray, rather it is merely benefiting from their remnants like clothes, houses, farms, weapons, and the like. And if they mention something related to "religion", if they transmit it from the prophets, they are like the People of the Book and in a worse state. And if they refer its knowledge to rational analogy, if it agrees with what is in the Quran, it is true, and if it contradicts it, the Quran clarifies its falsehood with the parables struck, as Allah said: {And they do not come to you with an example except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation}. So, in the Quran is the truth and the clear analogy that clarifies the falsehood of what they brought from analogy. And if what they mention is a general statement that includes the truth - and this is predominant among the altered Sabians like "Aristotle" and his followers and those who followed them from the later ones - before the truth and refutation of falsehood, the truth from that is not as clearly described as the truth in the Quran. Therefore, the matter in this is dependent on the knowledge of the Quran, its meanings, its interpretation, and its translation. And the translation and interpretation are "three levels": One of them: The translation of mere words, like transferring the word with a synonymous word. In this translation, you want to know that what is meant by this word among these people is exactly what is meant by the word among those people. This is beneficial knowledge. Because many people restrict the meaning to the word and do not separate it from both words together.