Abū Sulaymān al-Dārānī and others also used this designation. As for al-Shāfi‘ī, what is reported from him is criticism of the Sufis, and likewise from Mālik—as far as I recall. Ahmad used this designation when addressing Abū Hamzah al-Khurāsānī, Yūsuf ibn al-Husayn al-Rāzī, and Badr ibn Abī Badr al-Maghāzilī. Their path was criticized by a number of scholars and devout worshippers among the followers of Ahmad, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, and Abū Hanīfah, as well as by hadith scholars and other devout worshippers, while others praised it.

The sound assessment is that, like other paths, it contains both praiseworthy and blameworthy elements. Its blameworthy elements may or may not result from independent scholarly judgment. In this respect, they are comparable to jurists in their use of legal opinion, for many groups of scholars and devout worshippers have criticized legal opinion. The principle I set out earlier encompasses all of this. Among those who bear this designation are countless allies of Allah, His chosen ones, and the finest of His servants, just as among those who employ legal opinion are people of knowledge and faith whose number none but Allah can count. And Allah, glorified is He, knows best.

This makes it clear to you that, although innovation in religion is in principle blameworthy—as the Book and the Sunnah indicate, whether such innovations involve words or deeds—and I have written elsewhere that it is imperative to uphold the general scope of the Prophet’s saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “Every innovation is misguidance,” that one must act upon its general scope, and that whoever begins dividing innovations into good and bad and makes that