in creed—is, by Allah, reprehensible both according to religious law and by natural disposition. Whoever says, ‘I am Shāfi'ī in law and Ash'arī in creed,’ we tell him: ‘This is a contradiction—indeed, it is apostasy—for al-Shāfi'ī was not Ash'arī in creed.’ Whoever says, ‘I am Hanbalī in subsidiary rulings and Mu'tazilī in fundamentals,’ we tell him: ‘Then, by your own claim, you have strayed from the straight path, for Ahmad was not Mu'tazilī in his religion or his independent reasoning.’”

He said:

“Many Mālikīs have also been seduced by Ash'arī doctrines. By Allah, this is a disgrace, a shame, and a lapse that brings ruin, punishment, and an evil abode upon anyone professing adherence to the schools of these great imams. For their position is what we have transmitted: they declared the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, the Qadariyyah, and the Wāqifah unbelievers, and likewise declared the Lafziyyah unbelievers.”

He discussed the question of utterance at length, until he said:

“As for the imams other than those we have mentioned, no one has professed adherence to their schools; therefore, we have not undertaken to quote them.”

He said:

“If it is asked: ‘Why, then, did you not confine your quotations to those scholars of hadith whose schools became widespread and whose preferred positions were adopted—namely, the imams al-Shāfi'ī, Mālik, al-Thawrī, and Ahmad? For we see no one professing adherence to the school of al-Awzā'ī, al-Layth, or the others.’

“We reply: ‘Because the other imams whom we mentioned were also, broadly speaking, leaders of schools, since they were authorities followed in their own times. Their schools were subsequently subsumed under those of the recognized imams. Thus, Ibn 'Uyaynah was an authority whose example was followed, but he did not compile a work on