negates, they say nothing about. Most of them, however, end up denying it altogether, maintaining, “We affirm only what reason affirms.” Others suspend judgment, arguing that as long as reason neither proves nor disproves a matter we must simply remain undecided. They wrangle over such questions at great length, and when you hear them you may be impressed by their eloquence, yet their words are false. Of them it has been rightly said:

Arguments that crumble like glass—you imagine them sound,
Yet every hand that strikes them is itself left shattered.

They contradict one another: one of them insists that it is obligatory to describe Allah with a certain attribute, while another declares that attributing that very quality to Allah is impossible. The clash of their statements is itself proof of their unsoundness.

They have also produced Qur’anic commentaries founded on the principles of their sect: the Tafsīr of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Kaysān al-Aṣamm, teacher of Ibrāhīm ibn Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUlayyah who debated al-Shāfiʿī; the work of Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī; the Great Commentary by Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār ibn Aḥmad al-Hamadhānī; al-Jāmiʿ li-ʿIlm al-Qurʾān by ʿAlī ibn ʿĪsā al-Rummānī; and al-Kashshāf by Abū al-Qāsim al-Zamakhsharī. All of these authors embraced Muʿtazilī doctrine.

Commentary
Al-Kashshāf by Abū al-Qāsim al-Zamakhsharī is a famous and widely circulated work. In matters of language and rhetoric it is outstanding, but—as the Shaykh has observed—it is built on Muʿtazilī foundations. Unless you already know both the Muʿtazilī creed and the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah, you may not even notice the deviations, for Zamakhsharī is an able, persuasive writer who slips his ideas past the reader so smoothly that you think his words are the very epitome of correctness—yet therein lies real danger. For example, on the verse, “So whoever is kept away from the Fire…”