without a universal proposition ever coming to mind—that no two contraries can coexist and that every whole is greater than its part. Likewise, when it is said, “Two contradictories cannot both be true or both be false,” any pair recognized as contradictories is also known to be incapable of both being true or both being false, without calling to mind the universal proposition that this holds for every pair of contradictories.

Thus, most questions can be resolved without syllogistic reasoning involving a major premise, which necessarily requires a universal proposition. Particular things cannot be known through rational inference alone; such inference establishes only what they share with other things. They themselves concede this.

We have explained that the proofs pointing to the Maker are signs that, in themselves, point to His holy Self. We have also explained the difference between the indicative force of signs and that of syllogistic reasoning: these proofs are more perfect and beneficial, while the syllogistic method is subordinate to them and inferior in benefit and perfection. The Quran employs both approaches. For knowledge of divine matters, prophethood, and other subjects, the former approach is more perfect and complete.

Yet these people claim that no truth accessible to our innate nature can be attained except through syllogistic reasoning, which necessarily requires a universal proposition. A universal proposition, however, yields only a universal concept apprehended by the intellect; it does not yield knowledge of any particular thing. Everything that exists is particular. How, then, can any rational person nevertheless claim that knowledge can be attained only by this method?

Moreover, in their error, they suppose that the knowledge of the prophets—indeed, even the knowledge of the Lord, glorified is He—was acquired only