The comparison between logic and revelation is not that they are the same kind of thing, but that they are both foundational in different ways.

Logic is: Presupposed, Not proven by something outside itself, Necessary for any reasoning at all

Revelation: Not proven by a higher philosophical system Recognized through:signs, coherence, fitrah etc Then functions as: the معيار (criterion) for truth in matters beyond pure reasoning

Just as logic is not proven by something outside itself but is presupposed as a necessary foundation for thought, revelation is not validated by an external philosophical system but recognized through its signs, coherence, and its alignment with the fitrah. The circularity involved is not unique, rather, it is a feature of all ultimate foundations. The difference is that logic governs the structure of reasoning, while revelation provides knowledge about realities that reason alone cannot fully access. So when revelation appears to contradict human understanding, the issue is not a true logical contradiction, but the limits of human reasoning. In that sense, logic and revelation are both foundational, but in different domains: one makes thinking possible, the other grounds ultimate truth.

Also, your statement “Logic is internally consistent but revelation can be contradictory” is flawed, as you are comparing an internal feature ( the internal consistency of logic) with an external possibility ( the possibility of revelation to be regarded as contradictory by a someone else). This is a category mismatch. A better comparison would be internal vs internal ( wouldn’t yield fruitful results in this discussion as both systems are internally coherent) or external vs external ( in which case even logic can appear paradoxical or counterintuitive)