such as Ruʾūs al-Masāʾil by Judge Abū al-Husayn. It is reported that Shaykh Abū al-Barakāt, the author of al-Muharrar, used to tell those who asked him about the apparent position of Ahmad’s school that it was the position preferred by Abū al-Khattāb in his Ruʾūs al-Masāʾil.

Other works from which this may be ascertained include al-Mughnī by Shaykh Abū Muhammad and Sharh al-Hidāyah by our grandfather Abū al-Barakāt. Several scholars wrote commentaries on al-Hidāyah, including Abū Halīm al-Nahrawānī; Abū ʿAbd Allāh ibn Taymiyyah, the preacher and author of the Quran commentary, who was Abū al-Barakāt’s uncle; Abū al-Maʿālī ibn al-Munajjā; and Abū al-Baqāʾ the grammarian, though the latter did not complete his commentary.

The scholars of the school have differed over which positions they consider correct: one may consider one reported position correct, while another considers a different reported position correct. Whoever knows these differences reports them, and whoever finds one position stronger than another follows the stronger position. Whoever aims to transmit Ahmad’s school reports the differences they have mentioned concerning reported positions, juristic views, and lines of transmission, just as the followers of al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Hanīfah, and Mālik transmit the schools of their imams. For every school contains well-known differences in the positions reported from its imams, as well as disagreements among their followers over identifying their school’s position and determining which position carries greater weight according to Islamic law.

Whoever is well acquainted with Ahmad’s foundational principles and explicit statements will recognize the stronger position within his school on most questions; and if he has insight into the evidence of Islamic law, he will recognize the stronger position in