and that by this he meant the speculative theology of Hafs al-Fard and others like him; and that, when a group arose who labelled the arguments against them in Allah’s Book ambiguous, advocated rejecting the reports transmitted by the hadith scholars, and claimed that the reports brought to bear against them were unacceptable to their reason, a group of our leading scholars rose to respond. We demonstrated that everything contained in those reports is rationally sound, and that their claims of ambiguity in the Book are rationally unfounded.

In earlier times, only the followers of misguided desires were known for speculative theology. As for Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamā‘ah, they relied upon the Book and Sunnah in matters of belief, and so were not given the same designation. By his statement,

“Whoever clothes himself in speculative theology will not prosper,”

he meant only the speculative theology of those followers of misguided desires who abandoned the Book and Sunnah, relied upon their own reason, and set about adjusting the Book and Sunnah to conform to it. As for Ahl al-Sunnah, their approach to the fundamentals is founded upon the Book and Sunnah. Those among them who employed rational argument did so only to refute the position of those who claimed that this approach was not rationally sound.

I say:

This constitutes agreement between the Ash‘arī scholars and those of other groups who hold the early generations in high esteem: the speculative theology condemned by the early generations is that of those who abandon the Book and Sunnah and rely upon their own reason regarding the fundamentals. What, then, of someone who uses his reason to oppose