Scholars have discussed the various forms of this. Some groups have explained that religion has no need of newly introduced speculative theology, and that the proofs Allah has set forth in His Book through illustrative examples are far more beneficial than what these theologians introduce. Whatever proofs they present are already encompassed by what Allah Most High has mentioned.

Even al-Ashʿarī himself and others like him explained the way of the early generations in the foundations of religion and its independence from theological methods, such as arguments based on accidents and the like. They also explained that the Quran draws attention to rational proofs; its evidentiary force is not confined to conveying reports, as some speculative theologians suppose.

How far removed this is from the speculative theologians who say that the Book and the Sunnah provide no evidence whatsoever for the foundations of religion, and that these foundations are instead derived through rational reasoning known independently of them!

The same applies to the practical matters discussed by jurists. Some people say that analogical reasoning is needed for most of the Sharia because so few scriptural texts indicate its rulings. This is what Abū al-Maʿālī and other jurists like him maintain, despite their affiliation with the school of al-Shāfiʿī and other hadith-oriented jurists. What, then, of those who belong to the opinion-based school of Kufa and others like them?