For this reason, these scholars sometimes adopt the approach of those who reinterpret the texts, as Ibn Fūrak and others like him did when discussing reports that present difficulties. At other times, they consign knowledge of their meanings to Allah and say, “They are to be taken according to their apparent meanings,” as Judge Abū Yaʿlā and others like him did in this regard. At still other times, their scholarly judgment varies, and they favor one approach on one occasion and the other on another, as was the case with Ibn ʿAqīl and others like him.

These scholars may include among the problematic hadiths reports that are fabricated lies, without realizing that they are fabricated. They may also include reports whose wording dispels the difficulty—for example, a report describing a dream, which they suppose took place while awake on the night of the Ascension.

There are also people familiar with rational arguments drawn from the Jahmīs and others, who share some of their foundational premises but recognize that their positions conflict with matters widely known among the people of the Sunnah, such as the questions of the Quran and seeing Allah. For it is widely known among ordinary people and scholars alike that the position of the early generations and the people of the Sunnah and hadith is that the Quran is the speech of Allah, uncreated, and that Allah will be seen in the Hereafter.

These people therefore sought to combine defending what was widely known as the position of the people of the Sunnah and hadith with agreeing with the Jahmīs on those rational premises, which they believed to be sound. Yet they lacked the detailed knowledge of the Quran and its meanings, hadith, and the statements of the Companions possessed by the imams of the Sunnah and hadith. They thus adopted a position combining elements of both, and each of the two groups accused them of inconsistency.