for these reasons. Those who write about his merits and defend him against attacks and curses—such as al-Bayhaqī, Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī, and Ibn 'Asākir of Damascus—support their case only by citing his statements that agree with the people of Sunnah and hadith, or his refutations of their opponents’ views. These two qualities alone form the basis of their defence of him before the Muslim community, its scholars, and its rulers. Had he not been among those of his kind closest to these qualities, they would have placed him alongside his peers who lacked them, such as his first teacher, “Abū 'Alī,” and that teacher’s son, “Abū Hāshim.”

But his agreement with the doctrine of Sunnah and hadith concerning the divine attributes, divine decree, the imamate, virtues, intercession, the Reservoir, the Bridge, and the Balance, together with his refutations of the Mu'tazilah, Qadariyyah, Rāfidah, and Jahmiyyah and his exposure of their contradictions, warranted distinguishing him from those others and acknowledging his due and his standing:

“Allah has already set for everything a measure.”

His agreement with Sunnah and hadith earned him the acceptance and following that he attained. Yet the kind of agreement that involves overcoming an opponent and exposing the falsity of his position is akin to the work of a victorious warrior.

Thus, one who refutes the people of religious innovation is a warrior striving in Allah’s cause. Indeed, “Yahyā ibn Yahyā” used to say:

“Defending the Sunnah is better than jihad.”

A warrior may or may not be just in his conduct, and he may even be wicked, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Indeed, Allah supports this religion through a wicked man and through people who have no share in the Hereafter.”

For this reason, the established Sunnah has been to fight under every commander, whether righteous or wicked. Jihad is an act for which its doer undoubtedly deserves outward appreciation.