if propositions that can be known by some other method are presented, they cannot be assessed by these forms of proof. Most of these logicians deny whatever has not been established through their syllogistic reasoning. This is the height of ignorance, especially when what they deny consists of reports conveyed by the prophets.

If, then, the noblest knowledge cannot be attained by their method, two consequences follow:

First, they have no grounds for denying anything for which their syllogistic reasoning provides no proof.

Second, what they know is paltry compared with what they do not know. How much more so when it is known that their knowledge brings neither salvation nor happiness!

The tenth point:

They treat genuine knowledge, which must be accepted as true, as though it were not knowledge, while treating what is false and is not knowledge as knowledge. They claim that what the prophets taught concerning knowledge of Allah, His attributes, and the Hereafter has no corresponding reality. They claim that the prophets merely presented the masses with imagined representations of these matters, so that these would help them secure their worldly welfare, not so that they might thereby know the truth; and that this amounts to lying for people’s benefit.

They say that a prophet is well versed in the practical teachings of religion, but not its doctrinal teachings. Some of them regard the philosopher as superior to every prophet, including our Prophet—may the finest blessings and peace be upon him. They do not consider it obligatory to follow any particular prophet, neither Muhammad nor