He was their scholar, their jurist, and their hadith authority. An uncontested imam in Qur’anic readings, hadith, narrator criticism, the laws of inheritance and contractual stipulations, he was also thoroughly acquainted with the jurisprudence of Abū Ḥanīfah, the points of dispute between Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī, and the legal reasoning of the Zaydīs.

He said: “He espoused the school of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (1) and that of Shaykh Abū Hāshim (2). He journeyed through Syria, the Ḥijāz, and the Maghrib; studied under three thousand shaykhs; and in the closing years of his life travelled to Isfahān in search of hadith (3).”

He added: “People praised him with the saying, ‘He never saw anyone comparable to himself; he was the chronicle of his age and the Shaykh al-Islām (4).’”

I say: He went on to list other qualities, yet how can one celebrate a man who adopted iʿtizāl and innovation and derived but scant benefit from the Book and the Sunnah? This is a lesson, and success comes from Allah alone.

Intelligence cried out and declared:
“I am of no use at all …
except by the enabling grace of the Bestower.”

As for the remark that he followed al-Ḥasan’s doctrine, it is rejected. Al-Ḥasan indeed slipped in that matter, but it is firmly established that he later recanted it (5). All praise belongs to Allah.