As for the statement of some later scholars concerning widely accepted premises—“These are statements accepted because their proponent is supported by something that requires his word to be accepted,” and similar assertions—this is one of the additions that argument compelled them to make, and which they recognized they were obliged to accept according to the method of their predecessors. Hence most later Sabians, namely the philosophers, combined their beliefs with pure monotheism, just as most adherents of pure monotheism who entered into philosophy mixed pure monotheism with Sabianism and confounded truth with falsehood. I mean the innovated Sabianism that contains no faith—more precisely, no belief in prophethood—such as the Sabianism of the originator of logic and his followers.

As for ancient Sabianism, among its adherents are believers in Allah and the Last Day—those who believed and did righteous deeds; they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. Likewise, some forms of Judaism and Christianity had adherents who were misguided innovators even before Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was sent, whereas others had adherents who followed the truth. These are those who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteous deeds; they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Those scholars who wrote on logic and said, “The rhetorical syllogism is that which yields probable belief, just as the demonstrative syllogism is that which yields certain knowledge,” neither understood what those thinkers meant nor spoke correctly. Both rhetorical and dialectical syllogisms may yield probable belief, just as demonstrative syllogisms may have premises that are widely accepted and conceded. Thus, syllogistic premises are classified according to the grounds on which they are accepted. Sometimes one accepts