and their shaykh, and that he should be treated with the consideration warranted by his intelligence and piety. I instructed that the entire creed be read to him, for he had not attended the first session; they had only brought him to the second to enlist his support.

A trustworthy man told me that, after the shaykh had left the session, he met with him and said, “Tell me about this session.”

He replied, “Neither so-and-so nor I was at fault. The emir asked about one matter, and he answered him accordingly, whereas I thought he had asked about something else.”

He also said, “I told them: ‘You have no grounds for objecting to this man. He defended refraining from non-literal interpretation, while you defend adopting it. Both positions are attributed to al-Ash‘arī.’”

He said, “I prefer the position of refraining from non-literal interpretation.” He then produced his testament, which contained that position.

The man who related this to me said:

“I said to him, ‘I heard that at the end of the session—when the group were made to attest to their agreement—you said: “Do not record either a denial or an affirmation on my behalf.” Why was that?’

“He replied, ‘For two reasons. First, I was not present when the entire creed was read in the first session. Second, my associates had summoned me to enlist my support, so it would not have been fitting for me to express disagreement with them.’”

Thus, he remained silent regarding both parties.