because he himself did not act upon them, even though no one else refrained from doing so; on that question he had his own juristic position. The most that can be offered in Malik’s defense is to say that he disliked narrating a hadith that might tempt a listener whose mind could not cope with it. But to claim (2) that he disliked mentioning it under all circumstances is refuted by the fact that transmitters greater than Malik—both in his own estimation and in that of the Muslims—did relate these reports, such as ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿUmar, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn ʿAbbas, and ʿAtaʾ ibn Abi Rabah. His contemporaries (3) likewise narrated them, including Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Layth ibn Saʿd, and Ibn ʿUyaynah. Al-Thawri was more knowledgeable in hadith than Malik, had a firmer grasp of them, and made fewer mistakes in them (4) than Malik, even though Malik (5) was extremely selective (6) about those from whom he would transmit. As for al-Layth, al-Shafiʿi said of him: “He was more learned in jurisprudence than Malik, but his companions neglected his legacy.” (7)

In sum (8), this criticism concerns one specific hadith. To go on and assert that the leading Imams altogether turned away from these narrations is a tremendous calumny.

Tenth: Those scholars he named, along with the rest of the Imams of Islam, all affirmed the import of the Qur’anic verses and prophetic hadiths concerning the divine attributes. They were unanimous in censuring the speculative theology upon which Abu al-Maʿali built the foundations of his creed, and he claimed that it was the very first thing Allah made obligatory.