Lawgiver; or that which revelation prescribes one to understand rationally; or reasoning sanctioned by revelation. Alternatively, the Lawgiver may merely have communicated these truths, in which case their rational understanding comes from sources other than the Lawgiver. This distinction must be carefully noted. A rational truth may, however, be understood through the Lawgiver—as is the case with most of the foundations of religion—or it may be understood through another source without being understood through him. Whether this latter case actually exists calls for scrutiny.

This clarification makes it evident that most philosophers and the majority of speculative theologians are ignorant of the full scope of revealed knowledge and of the Lawgiver’s guidance to it. This leads them to imagine that rational knowledge is superior to it. Their ignorance rests on two premises born of ignorance:

The first is that revealed knowledge consists of what the Lawgiver has communicated.

The second is that whatever is learned through his communication is secondary to rational truths, which constitute the foundations. From this follows their elevation of rational knowledge above revealed knowledge. Both premises are false.

For revealed knowledge includes both what the Lawgiver has communicated and what he has furnished evidence for. What the Lawgiver has furnished evidence for encompasses everything that needs to be known through reason, all proofs and demonstrations, the foundations of religion, and matters of belief. Indeed, I have reflected on most of what the philosophers and speculative theologians discuss, and on rational proofs, and have found that the proofs of the Quran and Sunnah convey their pure essence, free of impurities, and bring forth things