and Abū Bakr ibn Fūrak, Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī, and others? They all explicitly affirm what we have said and the opposite of what he has said. This is why the Hanbalīs and the Ash'arīs reconciled, and everyone came to an agreement.

When the Hanbalīs read the words of Abū al-Hasan al-Ash'arī, they said, “This is better than the words of Shaykh al-Muwaffaq.” The resentments harboured in their hearts disappeared, and the Shāfi'ī jurists and others began saying, “Praise be to Allah for bringing the Muslims into agreement.”

Moreover, even supposing that the matter on which he ruled admitted of independent legal reasoning, he would have had no right to overturn another judge’s ruling. How much more objectionable, then, is overturning the rulings of all the judges of Syria without even a semblance of justification—indeed, on grounds that contradict the Muslims’ religion, by their unanimous agreement! Even if someone claimed that the judges of Syria had been coerced, more than one of them explicitly denies having been coerced. These judges in Egypt were more evidently under coercion, since it was widely known that he had acted to serve a state objective concerning political power, and that, were it not for this, the judges would have spoken about certain matters. This is established on the authority of the judges of Egypt.

How much more so when the ruling he issued contradicts Islamic religious law in twenty-odd respects, most of which are established by the unanimous agreement of the Muslims? These points have been set down in writing and are with al-Sharaf Muhammad. Shaykh “Nasr” should therefore be informed of the true state of affairs and the underlying circumstances of the case, so that he may remedy it through his judicious handling.

I seek nothing but obedience to Allah and His Messenger. The only danger feared for the Egyptians is what some of them may do to others, as has habitually happened. You have heard what happened in Damascus—even though