al-Ājurrī in “al-Sharī'a” (The Sacred Law), and al-Lālakā'ī in al-Sunan (The Traditions). Al-Khallāl likewise followed an approach close to his, and Shaykh Abū Muhammad and the later hadith scholars incline toward his approach.

[“As for the Tamīmīs,” such as Abū al-Hasan, Ibn Abī al-Fadl, and Ibn Rizq Allāh] (*), they are less inclined toward affirmation, more disposed to agree with others, and more accommodating toward them. Hence the Sufis follow them, and distinguished Ash'arīs, such as al-Bāqillānī and al-Bayhaqī, incline toward them. Indeed, the account of Ahmad’s creed written by Abū al-Fadl is the one upon which al-Bayhaqī relied. Nevertheless, these men follow the Sunnah.

As for Ibn 'Aqīl, if he deviates, a strong Mu'tazilī strain enters his discussions of the divine attributes, divine decree, and the miraculous gifts granted to Allah’s righteous servants—to the point that al-Ash'arī’s statements are sounder than his and closer to the Sunnah.

Al-Ash'arī professed allegiance solely to the school of the hadith scholars, whose imam, in his view, was Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abū Bakr 'Abd al-'Azīz and others made statements in their debates indicating that they regarded him as one of the speculative theologians among the hadith scholars, rather than as someone separate from them. In earlier times they were close to one another, although some of them criticized him for things they might likewise criticize in one of their own who ventured into speculative theology, because of the religious innovation involved. Nevertheless, the foundations of his doctrine do not conform to the pure Sunnah; rather, they fall short of it in well-known ways.

In what they affirm of the Sunnah, the “Ash'arīs” are dependent upon the Hanbalis, just as the speculative theologians among the Hanbalis are dependent upon them for the rational analogies they use as arguments. The division arose only because of the turmoil surrounding al-Qushayrī.