and it is well known that, after al-Shāfi‘ī and Ibn Surayj, no one has equalled Shaykh Abū Hāmid al-Isfarāyīnī. Indeed, Abū Ishāq relates in Biographies of the Jurists, on the authority of Abū al-Husayn al-Qudūrī, that he used to say of Shaykh Abū Hāmid: “He is more adept at reasoning than al-Shāfi‘ī.” Although this statement is not accurate, given al-Shāfi‘ī’s great stature and lofty rank, Shaykh Abū al-Husayn al-Qudūrī would not have said such a thing about Abū Hāmid had it not been for his exceptional ability.

[Abū Hāmid al-Isfarāyīnī’s discussion in al-Ta‘līq on the principles of jurisprudence]

Abū Hāmid said in his book al-Ta‘līq on the principles of jurisprudence:

“The question of whether a command is such by virtue of its form or an accompanying contextual indication: People have differed over whether a command has a form that indicates that it is a command, or whether it has no such form. There are three positions. The leading jurists hold that a command has a form which, by itself, indicates that it is a command when unaccompanied by contextual indications. An example is someone saying, ‘Do such and such.’ When this occurs without accompanying contextual indications, it is a command; no contextual indication is needed to make it a command.

“This is the position of al-Shāfi‘ī, may Allah have mercy on him, Mālik, Abū Hanīfah, al-Awzā‘ī, and a body of scholars. It is also the view of al-Balkhī among the Mu‘tazilah.

“All the Mu‘tazilah except al-Balkhī hold that a command has no distinctive form, and that the wording alone does not indicate that it is a command. Rather, it becomes a command only through a contextual indication that accompanies