Thus, when someone says, “This has been brought into existence, and everything brought into existence must have an originator,” this points only to an unrestricted, universal originator whose conception does not preclude its applying to more than one. His specific identity is known only through another kind of knowledge that Allah places in people’s hearts. They themselves acknowledge this, because the conclusion cannot go beyond the premises, and the premises must necessarily include a universal proposition.

A universal does not identify a particular entity. This differs from the signs Allah mentions in His Book, as in His words, Exalted is He:

“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth”

—and the rest of the verse, along with other such passages. These signs point to a particular entity, just as the sun is the sign of daytime. Evidence is broader than syllogistic reasoning: one particular thing may serve as evidence for another, just as a star and other heavenly bodies are used to determine the direction of the Kaaba. Thus, the signs point to the Creator Himself—glorified be He—not to something shared between Him and another. Everything other than Him depends upon Him Himself; hence, its existence necessarily entails the existence of the Creator Himself.

The fourth point:

The middle term repeated in a universal syllogism—namely, “wine” in the statement, “Every intoxicant is wine, and all wine is forbidden”—is the basis of the ruling in analogical reasoning: the common feature linking the original case and the new case. The two forms of reasoning therefore entail one another. Whatever can be known through either can also be known through the other. Moreover, if the evidence is conclusive, it is conclusive in both; if it is probable, it is probable in both.

As for the claim made by some logicians and their followers that certainty can be attained only through universal syllogistic reasoning, not through analogical reasoning, it is utterly unsound. It is the statement of