Indeed, this is even better, for they did not write their books for any particular Muslim, such that betrayal might enter into them. There is no need here to rely on any of them and risk betrayal; rather, this is simply benefiting from what they have produced, like clothing, dwellings, farmland, weapons, and the like.

If they discuss matters concerning “religion,” then, if they transmit them from the prophets, they are like the People of the Book in this respect, but worse off. If they make knowledge of these matters dependent on rational inference, then whatever agrees with the Quran is true. Whatever contradicts it, however, is shown to be false by the examples set forth in the Quran, as Allah Most High says:

“They do not bring you any argument but We bring you the truth and the best explanation.”

Thus, the Quran contains both the truth and clear reasoning that demonstrates the invalidity of the reasoning they present. If their statements are undifferentiated but contain truth—as is generally the case with the Sabians who altered their religion, such as “Aristotle” and his followers, and with others who followed them—then the truth is to be accepted and falsehood rejected. Yet even the truth they contain is not set forth as clearly as the truth is in the Quran. This matter therefore depends on knowing the Quran, its meanings, its explanation, and its translation.

Translation and explanation have “three levels”:

The first is translating the wording alone, such as replacing an expression with a synonymous expression. In this kind of translation, you seek to establish that what one group means by its expression is precisely what another group means by theirs. This is useful knowledge, for many people tie a meaning to a particular expression and do not consider it independently of both expressions.