If you say: Did the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, not prohibit the worship of idols with rational evidence until the clear signs came to him from his Lord? I say: Yes, but the clear signs, when they were supportive of the rational evidence and confirmed it, included their mention, like His saying, "Do you worship what you carve? And Allah created you and what you do," and similar verses that indicate the rational evidence. Thus, the mention of the clear signs includes both rational and textual evidence. He mentioned what indicates both matters because the mention of the support of the evidence, both rational and textual, is stronger in refuting their doctrine, even if the rational evidence alone is sufficient. [Mahran said: "If you say: The Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, had clear rational evidence for monotheism before the revelation came, what is the verse to be understood as?" He answered that it is indeed so, but the clear signs are supportive of the rational evidence and confirm it and include their mention, like His saying, "Do you worship what you carve? And Allah created you and what you do," and similar verses that indicate both rational and textual evidence. He mentioned what indicates both matters because the mention of both is stronger in refuting their doctrine, even if the rational evidence alone is sufficient." Ahmad said: "It is appropriate according to the principles of the Sunnah to say: As for the knowledge of Allah, the Exalted, and the knowledge of His oneness and the impossibility of idols being deities, it is derived from rational evidence, and rational evidence may be refuted in the contents of the textual evidence. As for the obligation to worship Allah, the Exalted, and the prohibition of idol worship, it is a legal ruling that can only be derived from the textual evidence. Therefore, the answer to this question is left aside. And His saying, 'Indeed, I was forbidden to worship those whom you invoke besides Allah,' is intended - and Allah knows best - to prohibit the worship of others besides Allah. This can only be derived from Allah's prohibition of that, not from reason. However, the principle of Al-Zamakhshari necessitates that the prohibition of worshiping others besides Allah is received from reason before the arrival of the Shari'ah, as reason, according to him, rules by virtue of what is good and bad. For this reason, he presented the objection to it and needed to answer it. Then his statement in response that the evidences of the Shari'ah are supportive of the rational evidence is weak, while believing that reason indicates the ruling definitively. How can what is indicated definitively be subject to increase and confirmation? And the definitive matters do not differ in their establishment.