they have a path to Allah other than the path of the Messenger. This is not the kind of innovation introduced by Muslims, but the kind introduced by irreligious philosophers and others like them. People have recognized that those philosophers are not Muslims, yet these people claim to be Allah’s allies while making statements that only someone whose unbelief exceeds that of Jews and Christians would make.

Many of them—or most of them—do not realize that this contradicts the Messenger. Indeed, one group among them believes that the People of the Portico fought the Messenger and that he approved of their doing so. Others believe that the Messenger was commanded to go and greet them and ask them to supplicate for him, but that they refused him permission to enter, saying, “Go to those to whom you were sent.” They claim that he then returned to his Lord, who commanded him to humble himself and say, “Your humble servant has come to greet you.” They then comforted him and permitted him to enter.

Despite holding this monstrously unbelieving doctrine—which no Jew or Christian who acknowledges him as Allah’s Messenger to the unlettered would hold—they say that the Messenger approved of their conduct and acknowledged it, and that he acknowledged them as Allah’s chosen intimates. They claim that Allah addresses them without the Messenger’s mediation and has given them no need of him, just as some of a king’s intimates have no need of his ministers. They cite the account of al-Khidr and Moses as evidence, whereas it is evidence against them, not in their favour, in many respects that have been explained at length elsewhere.

Misguidance and ignorance are more prevalent among devotees and innovators than among proponents of doctrines. Nevertheless, they possess a degree of asceticism, worship, and good character not found among