the position of the leading theologians who affirm the divine attributes: neither Abū Muhammad ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sa‘īd ibn Kullāb, nor Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qalānisī and others like them. Nor is it the position of Abū al-Hasan al-Ash‘arī, Abū al-Hasan ‘Alī ibn Mahdī al-Tabarī, Judge Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī, or the other leading Ash‘arīs whom you claim as your fellows.

If it is said, “These men contradict themselves,” it is no more justified to deny that they held the affirmative position they explicitly expressed, on account of statements contradicting it, than to deny that they held the negative position on account of statements contradicting that—especially when affirmation is known to have been their later position.

If Abū al-Ma‘ālī, al-Shahrastānī, and various other groups disagreed with certain leading and early authorities of their own school concerning affirmation, their position cannot be treated as the position of those earlier authorities; rather, it is a report of his imam’s doctrine. Moreover, we have already cited reports transmitted by trustworthy leading scholars showing that Abū al-Ma‘ālī was bewildered over this question during his lifetime and, as he approached death, returned to the faith of people of sound innate disposition, such as elderly women. Al-Rāzī’s bewilderment and repentance are likewise well known, and the same applies to their leading authorities.