But the purpose here is to clarify his report that the imams of the Sunnah agreed in condemning speculative theology, and his statement that neither it nor the philosophical approach enables one to uncover realities and know them, despite his expertise in these matters.

He spoke on the basis of what had reached him from the early generations and what he understood and knew of what deserves praise or condemnation. His familiarity with the statements of the early generations and the true substance of what the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought was not comparable to his familiarity with the methods of speculative theology and philosophy that he had pursued. Thus, his discussion of the former did not display the knowledge and expertise found in his discussion of the latter—the field in which he was more knowledgeable than others. His statement that speculative theology harms knowledge by raising doubts, and harms the will by stirring up partisanship, applies only if that discourse is itself true: if its propositions and premises are true, indeed, known to be true. If, even so, examining it may engender doubts and enmity, then such a criticism may be made of it.

The early generations did not condemn speculative theology merely for that reason, nor merely because it contained technical expressions, provided their meanings were sound. Nor did they prohibit learning the evidence for the Creator, His attributes, and His acts. Rather, they were the most knowledgeable of people concerning these matters and the most familiar with the evidence for them. Nor did they prohibit sound inquiry into sound evidence leading to beneficial knowledge, or beneficial debate concerning it: whether to guide someone seeking guidance, to assist someone seeking help, or to refute a vacillating proponent of falsehood. Rather, they were the most accomplished of people in inquiry, inference, and drawing lessons, and they examined the soundest and most reliable evidence. For the inquirer