and treating that as part of tawḥīd stems from the assertions of the people of falsehood; how much worse is the case of the one who makes it the very foundation of the religion. As Shaykh al-Islām said (1):

“I heard Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥasan relate—al-Ashʿath informed me—saying: A man once said to Bishr ibn Aḥmad Abū Sahl al-Isfarāʾīnī, ‘I am only learning kalām (speculative theology) so that I may thereby know the religion.’ He became angry, and I heard him say, ‘Were the early scholars among our predecessors unbelievers, then?’”

Abū ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (2) said: “My position is this: when one considers the Islam of Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, ʿAlī, Saʿd, Saʿīd, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, and the rest of the Emigrants and Helpers (3), together with all the delegations that entered the religion of Allah in multitudes, he will realize that none of them came to know Allah—Mighty and Majestic—except by believing the prophets and through the signs (4) of prophethood and the proofs of messengership; never by way of motion or rest (5), nor through the categories of part and whole (6), nor through the maxim of ‘was and will be.’ Had reflection upon motion and rest been obligatory for them, and had inquiry into body and its negation, or into anthropomorphism and its negation (7), been incumbent, they would not have neglected it; and had they failed in an obligation (8) the Quran would not have spoken in their praise and precedence, nor would it have been so copious in lauding and exalting them. Moreover, had that been part of their acknowledged knowledge (9) and familiar conduct, it would have been widely transmitted from them and they would have been renowned for it.”