accepted by the Muslim community at large. Since that is not the case, condemning people by this designation has no basis in a scriptural text, scholarly consensus, or any authority whom laypeople may legitimately follow. When such condemnation has no foundation for either scholars exercising independent judgment or those who follow scholarly authority generally, it is utterly unsound and unjust. Even if someone whom certain laypeople could legitimately follow were to condemn others by this designation, that would not constitute proof, since another layperson following an authority whom he may legitimately follow cannot be condemned on that basis. Moreover, Abū Muhammad and others like him did not consider it permissible to pronounce on many subsidiary questions of jurisprudence merely by following scholarly authority. How, then, could he permissibly pronounce on the fundamentals of religion on that basis?

The crux of the matter is this:

Anyone who condemns others by this designation is either exercising independent scholarly judgment or following scholarly authority. The former must have a scriptural text, scholarly consensus, or evidence derived from either, for condemnation and praise are judgments governed by the revealed law. We have already explained this and stated that praise and condemnation, love and hatred, promises of reward and threats of punishment, allegiance and enmity, and similar religious judgments are valid only when based on designations for which Allah has revealed authority. Making such judgments dependent on invented designations is impermissible; indeed, it amounts to instituting a religion for which Allah has given no permission. We also explained that one must know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger.

The Muʿtazilites likewise declare groups among the Companions and their successors to be sinners. They disparage many of them and the hadiths they transmitted that contradict their views and desires. Indeed, they also declare to be disbelievers those among the earlier and later generations who oppose the principles they have adopted. Thus, their disparagement extends to the scholars of