The third response: contesting the conclusion drawn from the analogy (1) that he offered and made the premise upon which he based his analogical reasoning.

If one of two men tells a man, “My road is safe and will get me to my destination,” while the other tells him, “I do not know whether my road is safe and will get me there”—or if the first man says this—it would not be rational to believe the first merely on his word. Rational people would consider it possible that this man (2) was plotting against him and lying so that he would accompany him along the road, whereupon he would kill him and take his wealth. He might also be ignorant (3) and unaware of the dangers along the road. The other man, however, guaranteed the questioner nothing, but left him to exercise his own judgment. Prudence in a case such as (4) this requires the man to consider which road is preferable to take: one of those two (5) roads or some other road (6).

If (7) everyone who said, “Indeed (8), my road is safe and leads to the destination,” were more worthy of belief than someone who withheld judgment, then every fabricator and every ignorant person who claimed regarding ambiguous issues, “My position on them is correct, and I am certain of that; therefore, following me is preferable to the method of these people who examine the evidence and reason from it,” would have to be followed. It would also follow that the lying shaykhs who assure their disciples (9) of Paradise and of such-and-such rewards in the Hereafter, who claim that everyone who loves them will enter Paradise, and that whoever gives them money will be granted by them