the sunnah and hadith, as in his discussions of divine decree, irjā’, and similar matters—not for his distinctive view concerning the relative merits of the Companions. Likewise, in his discussion of the divine attributes, he is praised for agreeing with the adherents of the sunnah and hadith: he holds firmly to authentic hadiths, esteems the early generations and the leading hadith scholars, and states that he agrees with Imām Ahmad on the question of the Quran and other matters. There is no doubt that he agrees with him and with them on some of these matters.

However, al-Ash‘arī and others like him agree more closely with Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the imams before him concerning the Quran and the divine attributes, although Abū Muhammad ibn Hazm is sounder than others on questions of faith and divine decree, more knowledgeable about hadith, and more reverent toward it and its scholars. Yet he became involved with certain views of the philosophers and the Mu‘tazila concerning the divine attributes, which diverted him from agreeing with the hadith scholars on the substance of their position in these matters. Thus he agreed with the hadith scholars in wording, but with the others in meaning.

Such positions led those jurists, speculative theologians, and hadith scholars who criticized him to do so for his adherence to an outward sense devoid of inward substance—as in his denial of underlying meanings in commands, prohibitions, and word derivation, and his denial of departures from the ordinary course of events and similar matters relating to acts of worship of the heart. This is compounded by his disparagement of eminent scholars, his excessive denial of underlying meanings, and his claim to follow the apparent senses of texts—although he possesses faith, religious devotion, and extensive learning in many fields that only an obstinate person would deny. His books display wide familiarity with scholarly views and knowledge of circumstances,