angels from Allah to those servants whom He chooses and selects. Nor did they affirm that He intended to speak to any particular one of His messengers. Thus, one of their early representatives is reported to have said to Moses son of ʿImrān: “I believe you in everything except that the Cause of causes spoke to you. I cannot believe you in this.” Consequently, those led astray by such discourse have come to claim equality with the prophets and messengers, or even superiority over them. This is widespread among people who consider themselves the most perfect of humankind, yet are among the most ignorant, unjust, unbelieving and hypocritical.

As for the speculative theologians who follow logic, they say: “Through this reasoning, one can establish the Creator’s existence and power, the possibility of sending messengers, and Allah’s supporting them with what requires that they be believed in what they say.” This approach is closer to that of the believing scholars, although it may contain various kinds of falsehood: sometimes arising from what they have uncritically adopted from the logicians, and sometimes from their own innovations, which are not our subject here.

The Jewish and Christian logicians follow a similar course. Yet guidance, knowledge and clarity are greater among Muslim philosophers and speculative theologians than among the people of the two Scriptures, owing to the corruption within those two religions. The purpose here, however, is to establish prophethood in general. The adherents of the revealed religions agree on this, but the Jews and Christians believed in some messengers and disbelieved in others, while the Sabian philosophers and their like believed in some attributes of messengership but not others. Thus, if a philosophizer happens to be one of the People of