as he did in his book Interpreting Difficult Scriptural Texts. His inclination toward negation prevented him from tracing the affirmations found in the statements of his own imams and others. Likewise, we have shown how he added to and omitted from the words he quoted from al-Ash‘arī, although the quotation amounts to only about two folios. Perhaps he also did this with the words he quoted from Ibn Kullāb, since we have not found a copy of the original works from which he quoted that would enable us to establish how he treated them. What he transmits contains clear distortion.

His approach, however, is that of someone who attributes his own legal opinions and beliefs to the Sunnah and the Prophetic Law, believing that these represent the truth, which the Sunnah and Prophetic Law cannot contradict. Similarly, he believes that certain principles held by Ibn Kullāb and al-Ash‘arī necessitate his additions and omissions; otherwise, the apparent sense of their words would indicate the contrary.

This is a familiar principle among many theologians and jurists: they consider it permissible to attribute statements to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that accord with what they believe his revealed law teaches. They even go so far as to fabricate hadiths supporting that position and attribute them to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Ibn Fūrak, however, was not one of these. Rather, he belonged to the second category: those who attribute to the imams what they themselves believe to be true.

This occurs among many of his group. Indeed, at one of the assemblies convened in our own time, the chief judge said: “The position of