And most of what he says in al-Ihyā’ (The Revival) is sound, but it contains corrupt elements drawn from philosophy, speculative theology, Sufi nonsense, and fabricated hadiths. He and Ibn ‘Aqīl share a tendency toward contradictory statements concerning the divine attributes: regarding one of the attributes, he may condemn as unbelief the very position he champions in another work. When he writes according to a particular group’s approach, its doctrine tends to dominate his thinking.

As for Ibn al-Khatīb, he is exceedingly inconsistent and never settles on a position. His writings are nothing but inquiry and disputation, like someone searching who has not found what he seeks. Abū Hāmid, by contrast, often does settle on a position.

The Ash‘arīs are predominantly Murji’īs concerning religious designations and rulings, and Jabrites concerning divine decree. Regarding the divine attributes, however, they are not outright Jahmīs, though they exhibit a degree of Jahmī doctrine.

The Mu‘tazilīs are Wa‘īdīs concerning religious designations and rulings, Qadarīs concerning divine decree, and outright Jahmīs. The later Shi‘a followed them in this, adding their teachings on the imamate and superior merit, but differing from them concerning divine threats of punishment. They also advocate rebellion against rulers.

The Ash‘arīs, however, do not advocate taking up the sword, agreeing in this with the people of hadith. Overall, they are the speculative theologians closest to the doctrine of the people of the Sunnah and hadith. The Kullābīs, and likewise the Karrāmīs, also have some affinity with the people of the Sunnah and hadith, although each of these positions contains elements contrary to their teachings.