in religious knowledge. He mentioned a number of them, including Abū Bakr al-Khallāl, whom he mistook for Abū Muhammad al-Khallāl, the teacher of Judge Abū Ya‘lā and Abū Bakr al-Khatīb. Thus, he confused the two.

Likewise, the Iraqis who identified with those who affirm the divine attributes among the followers of Ibn Kullāb—such as Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qalānisī, Abū al-Hasan al-Ash‘arī, Abū al-Hasan ‘Alī ibn Mahdī al-Tabarī, Judge Abū Bakr ibn al-Bāqillānī, and others like them—were closer to the Sunnah and followed Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others like him more faithfully than did the people of Khurāsān who inclined toward Ibn Kullāb’s approach.

For this reason, Judge Abū Bakr ibn al-Tayyib would sometimes sign his responses “Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Hanbalī,” just as al-Ash‘arī also called himself a Hanbalī. Al-Ash‘arī and his companions identified themselves with Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other imams of the Sunnah like him. Indeed, al-Ash‘arī was closer to the teachings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the people of the Sunnah than many later scholars who identified themselves with Ahmad but inclined toward some of the theological views of the Mu‘tazilah, such as Ibn ‘Aqīl, Sadaqah ibn al-Husayn, Ibn al-Jawzī, and others like them.