because they believe them to be true. This is a principle that should be understood. Another reason is that “al-Ash‘arī” did not leave extensive, widely circulated discussions establishing the teaching concerning “the Throne” and Allah’s distinctness from creation, as did his imam, “Ibn Kullāb.” This was because he addressed the questions on which the Mu‘tazila openly expressed disagreement, such as divine speech, seeing Allah, and the denial of divine decree and of intercession for those who commit major sins, and similar matters.

As for Allah’s being above creation, they disclosed their disagreement only to their inner circle, because Muslims at large rejected their position. The early generations of the Muslim community and its imams knew what they concealed concerning this only by inference. Thus, “al-Ash‘arī” undertook to refute their well-known innovations. Openly opposing them concerning the Quran and seeing Allah therefore became a hallmark of his school, about which his followers did not disagree, even though they might interpret these teachings in ways approaching the Mu‘tazilī position.

By contrast, the teachings they did not openly oppose were more deeply rooted in the Sunnah, held greater standing within the Muslim community, and were more firmly established by revelation and reason than those they openly opposed. Indeed, even distinguished philosophers such as “Abū al-Walīd ibn Rushd” report