As for these people, it is shown that the arguments with which they oppose the Messenger are invalid and offer no valid counterargument. It is not enough merely to show that their arguments are invalid and cannot counter his message; they also contradict plain reason. They claimed that reason contradicts revelation.

Four points are therefore demonstrated: that reason does not contradict revelation; that reason agrees with it; that the rational arguments they used to oppose revelation are invalid; and that plain reason itself contradicts their position.

Moreover, it is not enough to show that reason refutes the arguments with which they opposed the Messenger. It is also shown that what they presented as proof of the Maker’s existence actually points to His nonexistence. They have advanced an argument that necessarily entails denying the Maker, even though they think they are establishing His existence through it. The point here is that the arguments by which they claimed to establish the Maker’s existence point only to denying and negating Him. It is not merely that their reasoning is invalid and fails to establish the truth; rather, it points to a falsehood that they themselves, along with all other rational people, know to be false.

For this reason, their principles were described as:

“Arranging the principles to belie the Messenger.”

They were also described as:

“Arranging the principles to oppose the Messenger and reason.”

They made these principles foundations for knowledge of the Creator, yet they are principles that contradict knowledge of Him. Knowledge of the Creator cannot, therefore, be complete unless one believes the opposite of these principles. There is a difference between a foundation and proof that necessarily lead to knowledge of the Lord, and something that contradicts and opposes knowledge of Him.