and, beyond that, analogy that seeks the very rationale of the original case; the dogged reliance on a weak presumption of continuity (istishhāb); the refusal to follow the leading authorities among the Companions and those who came after them—something for which they are rightly censured—as well as their attacks on the honor of the Imams. Still, the point is that the claim made by Ibn Ḥazm and others—that the scriptural texts cover every eventuality and that Allah and His Messenger have already laid the religion out plainly for mankind—is nearer to genuine knowledge and true faith than the view of those who maintain that Allah has not clarified for people the rulings governing most of the new actions that arise, but has rather left them to colliding conjectures and conflicting opinions.

There is no doubt that the whole cause of this (1) is their weak acquaintance with the Prophetic traditions and the reports of the early generations. Had Abū al-Maʿālī and his peers possessed firm, deep-rooted knowledge of those sources, and held fast to them with their molar teeth, they would have been ranked among the Imams of the Muslims, for they did have the intellectual readiness required for ijtihād. Yet allegiance to (2) the newly-devised discipline of kalām and to a feeble opinion grounded in conjecture and the whims of the soul drags (3) its practitioner down to the station for which Allah has deemed him fit. Even if, within that misguided path, he exerts himself more than anyone else, excellence is not measured by the sheer quantity of exertion but by guidance and soundness.

As the early maxim states:

“Whenever an innovator increases his exertion, he only grows farther from Allah.” (4)

And the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said concerning the Khārijites:

“One of you will belittle his own prayer when set beside theirs, his fasting beside theirs, and his recitation beside theirs; they recite the Quran…”