through reason or truthful reports, about many matters that cannot be known by the methods they have described, including the knowledge possessed by the Prophets, may Allah bless them—they sought to subject all this to their flawed framework.

They said:
“A prophet possesses a faculty stronger than that of others, enabling him to arrive at the middle term without a teacher’s instruction. Once he forms a conception, he apprehends through that faculty the term which others may find difficult or impossible to apprehend without instruction, for the souls’ capacities for apprehension have no fixed limit.”

Thus, they maintained that the Prophets’ reports of the unseen came only through logical syllogism. This is utterly unsound. Logical syllogism yields knowledge only of universals, as explained earlier, and they themselves concede this. Yet the Messengers reported specific, individual, particular matters—past, present, and future. This establishes that the Messengers’ knowledge did not come through logical syllogism. Indeed, Ibn Sīnā even placed the Lord’s knowledge of what He brings into existence in this category. Exalted is Allah far above what he says!

What has been established demonstrates the falsity of their attempt, in logic, to restrict the means of acquiring knowledge in respect of both matter and form. It also shows that they excluded bodies of true knowledge far greater in dignity, importance, and extent than those they acknowledged. The method they described yields only a little knowledge of a lowly kind, neither abundant nor noble. Such is the standing of these people: they are among the basest of people in knowledge and deeds. The unbelievers among the Jews and Christians are superior to them in knowledge and deeds in many respects. All of philosophy cannot bring its adherent to the level of the Jews and Christians after the abrogation and alteration of their religions