the first premise is your saying that everything that is spoken about in negation and affirmation there is truth and falsehood in it and truth is one and falsehood is what is opposite to it. this is a true premise and we do not believe that there is any dispute about it. however it is not correct for you to use it for we say that among the people there are those who deny the truths of things and claim that there is no truth or falsehood and that things are dependent on beliefs. so what is believed to exist is existent in the right of that believer and what is believed to be nonexistent is nonexistent in the right of the believer. this is the statement of a group of sophists and perhaps they say things that have no truth so we say is this an introduction that they are certain of and you see it in dreams and it has no truth? how can you be assured of being certain of error in it? how many times have you seen yourselves in dreams certain of a matter that has no truth? what has assured you of being right or wrong from your opponents? we continue to present to them what they present to the people of reasoning to cast doubt on it but they find no solution. if they claim that we know the necessity of the error of those who oppose us from
المقدمة الاولى وهي قولكم إن كل شىء يتكلم فيه بنفي واثبات ففيه حق وباطل والحق واحد والباطل ما يقابله فهذه مقدمة صادقة لا نعتقد نزاعا فيها ولكن لا يصح منكم استعمالها فانا نقول من الناس من انكر حقائق الاشياء وزعم انه لا حق ولا باطل وان الاشياء تابعة للإعتقادات فما يعتقد فيه الوجود فهو موجود في حق ذلك المعتقد وما يعتقد فيه العدم فهو معدوم في حق المعتقد وهذه مقالة فرقة من فرق السوفسطائية وربما يقولون الاشياء لا حقيقة لها فنقول هل هذه المقدمة مقدمة يقطعون بها وأنتم ترونها في المنام ولا حقيقة لها فبماذا أمنتم الغلط فيها وكم رأيتم انفسكم في المنام قاطعين بأمر لا حقيقة له وما الذي آمنكم من اصابة خصومكم وخطئكم ولا نزال نورد عليهم ما يوردونه على اهل النظر للتشكيك فيه فلا يجدون فصلا فان زعموا أنا نعرف ضرورة خطأ من يخالفنا من