al-Bāqillānī—was due to this underlying premise. Other difficulties also arose for him because of it. Shaykh Abū Hāmid, Shaykh Abū ‘Abd Allāh ibn Hāmid, and other scholars from Iraq, Khurāsān, Syria, the Hijaz, and Egypt opposed him, despite his great virtues, numerous merits, and refutations of heretics, deniers of the faith, and proponents of religious innovation. Indeed, among those affiliated with Ibn Kullāb and al-Ash‘arī, none was more eminent than he, nor did anyone produce better books and writings. Through him, this position became widespread. He identified himself with Imam Ahmad, the adherents of the Sunnah and hadith, and the early generations, while also identifying himself with Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, and other imams. He would even sign some of his replies: “Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Hanbalī.”

The mutual loyalty and close friendship between him and Abū al-Hasan al-Tamīmī, his family, and other Tamīmīs are well known, as mentioned earlier. Consequently, the Tamīmīs generally agreed with his foundational doctrines. When Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī compiled his book on the virtues of Imam Ahmad—and Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī agreed with Ibn al-Bāqillānī’s foundational doctrines—he presented the account of Ahmad’s creed compiled by Abū al-Fadl ‘Abd al-Wāhid ibn Abī al-Hasan al-Tamīmī, which resembles Judge Abū Bakr’s foundational doctrines.

It is also related of him that, when teaching the question of divine speech according to the principles of Ibn Kullāb and al-Ash‘arī, he would say:

“This is what Abū al-Hasan stated. I explain it to you, although this question has not yet become clear to me.”

Thus, he was reported to have withheld judgment on it, since on a number of issues he held