This, then, was his normal procedure with most Hanafīs: we never find him censuring anyone because of his school—neither Shāfiʿīs, Mālikīs, nor Hanafīs.

Had al-Subkī claimed that his only prejudice was against the Ashʿarīs, he would have found some sympathetic ears, and his supporters would have searched out a few passages to back his view. I have, however, combed through Tārīkh al-Islām, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, and other works, yet could not come upon a single instance that deserves to be called a criticism of an Ashʿarī.

Admittedly, one does encounter a certain brevity in the biographies of some Ashʿarīs. In this connection I have come to feel that the shortness of a few Ashʿarī entries stems from al-Dhahabī’s reluctance to reproduce his opponents’ views at length, preferring peace of mind. Thus, in his notice on Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, al-Dhahabī voices not a word of censure, even though al-Ashʿarī spent the greater part of his life as a Muʿtazilī—and we know al-Dhahabī’s stance toward the Muʿtazila.

In fact, al-Dhahabī did not deny the man’s merit; on the contrary, he listed him as the reviver of the discipline of theology at the head of the fourth century AH ⦗1⦘.

With respect to Sufism, al-Subkī’s remark is correct, but only for a small minority of its adherents. This was an opinion al-Dhahabī adopted, believed in, and maintained, for he drew a line between two distinct groups among them.

The first group held fast to sound religion and followed the Sunnah; al-Dhahabī esteemed them greatly. Indeed, he himself donned the Sufi mantle (khirqa) from Shaykh Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn ʿĪsā ibn Yaḥyā al-Anṣārī al-Sabtī during his journey to Egypt ⦗2⦘. He also believed in some of the miracles of the great ascetics and took pains to record them in his books—something he does frequently ⦗3⦘—and he mentions some