principle; for recognizing the Messenger depends upon knowing the One who sent him. It is therefore necessary first to establish knowledge of the Maker and to know what is and is not possible with respect to Him.

They said:

This can only be known through this method. For, they claim, there is no way to know the Maker except by knowing His creatures, and no way to know that His creatures originated in time except through this method. Most of them say: A person’s first obligation is to know Allah, and He can only be known through this method.

Many of them say:

This is the method of Abraham, the close friend of Allah, peace be upon him, mentioned in his words:

“I do not love those that set.”

They said: Abraham inferred from setting—which is movement and change of place—that whatever moves cannot be a god.

They said:

For this reason, whatever has been transmitted from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that conflicts with this—descriptions of the Lord as coming, arriving, descending, and so forth—must be interpreted figuratively. For his prophethood was only known through this rational proof. Were this proof called into question, the proof of his prophethood would necessarily be called into question, and it would no longer be known that he is the Messenger of Allah.

This and similar arguments constitute the rational proof which they say conflicts with revelation and reason. And we say: When revelation and reason conflict, it is impossible to affirm both, to reject both, or to affirm revelation rather than reason, because reason is the foundation of revelation. Thus, to undermine the foundation of the revealed religion would be to undermine that religion itself.

It was because of this method that the Jahmiyyah and the Muʿtazilah denied the divine attributes and the vision of Allah, and said: