a proposition entails the falsity of its contradictory and the truth of its simple converse and contrapositive. Thus, if our statement, “No pilgrim is an unbeliever,” is true, then our statement, “No unbeliever is a pilgrim,” is also true.

We say: What they have proposed is either false or an unnecessarily lengthy procedure that makes the reasoner’s path longer. It therefore involves either an error that obstructs the truth or a long path that exhausts the person following it before he reaches the truth, although he could reach it by a shorter route. Some of our predecessors illustrated this by comparing it to someone who, when asked, “Where is your ear?” raised [his hand] (*) very high and then swung it around to his left ear, although he could have pointed directly to either his right or his left ear.

How beautifully Allah describes His Book when He says:

“Indeed, this Quran guides to that which is most upright.”

The most upright path to the noblest goals is therefore what Allah sent His Messenger with. As for these people’s method, besides their going astray in some matters and taking a crooked, lengthy path in others, it leads them only to something that cannot save them from Allah’s punishment, let alone secure felicity for them, much less enable human souls to attain perfection through their method.

To explain: Their restriction of proof to syllogism, induction, and analogy is unsupported by any proof; indeed, it is false. Likewise, their assertion that the knowledge sought can be attained only through two premises—neither more nor fewer—is unsupported by any proof; indeed, it is false.

Their argument for this restriction is their statement: “One reasons either from the universal to the particular, or from the particular to the universal