through syllogistic reasoning. Their statements imply that the same holds for the Lord’s knowledge. Yet he has no evidence whatsoever for this, beyond simply drawing an analogy between the prophets and friends of Allah and himself, and between the Lord and the angels and human beings.

This is a point of which the believer should be certain. He should know that these people and others have generally gone astray because of what they denied and rejected, not because of what they affirmed and knew. This is why logic can lead to heresy in someone whose heart lacks firm faith: he believes that knowledge can be attained only through these particular kinds of premises and this logical form, yet he finds these lacking in most of what the prophets have conveyed. He therefore doubts it, rejects it, or turns away from believing and accepting it as true. His lack of faith and knowledge thus stems from his mistaken belief that knowledge can arise only from these particular kinds of premises—a belief for which there is absolutely no evidence. Although these premises do yield knowledge, there is an obvious difference between saying that they yield it and saying that they yield it and that it cannot be attained otherwise.

A further clarification is that syllogistic reasoning establishes only universal knowledge, as they themselves acknowledge, since it must contain a universal affirmative premise. A universal indicates only what is shared in common, which is itself universal. Thus, syllogistic reasoning does not establish any particular realities in their individuality. All that can be known through it—if anything is known—is an attribute that they share with other things. Through it, therefore, nothing whatsoever can be known of the distinctive attributes of Lordship, nor of what is distinctive to any angel, prophet, or friend of Allah, nor even to any king or any being in the higher or lower realms. Thus, knowledge of these things must either be absent or be acquired