and understanding. For this reason, they call such speech a “driver,” because it urges souls onward—that is, it rouses and drives them, just as a camel-driver urges white camels onward. Wisdom, good exhortation, and argument conducted in the best manner, however, impart conviction and prompt action, and thus confer immense benefit.

I said that these three resemble, in some respects, the three types of syllogism—demonstrative, rhetorical, and dialectical—but are not identical to them; rather, they are more complete in many respects. There are several reasons for this:

• First: the methods found in the Quran combine knowledge and action, statements and directives, in the most complete manner, unlike logical syllogisms.

A rational, logical syllogism serves only to produce assent to declarative propositions, whether or not action follows from that assent. If its premises are certain, it constitutes a demonstration, whether or not those premises are widely accepted or conceded, and it yields certainty. If its premises are widely accepted or accepted, it is called rhetoric, whether or not they are certain. It produces belief and assent on the spectrum between certainty and conjecture; this does not mean that it produces conjecture rather than certainty, since nothing about premises being widely accepted prevents them from being certain and yielding certainty. There is a difference between what does not necessarily yield certainty and what precludes certainty.

Widely accepted premises, simply by virtue of being widely accepted, produce assent, persuasion, and belief. Then, if it is known that they are