than al-Ashʿarī himself. Al-Ashʿarī, in turn, is closer to the early generations than Judge Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī.

Judge Abū Bakr and others like him are closer to the early generations than Abū al-Maʿālī and his followers, for the latter denied attributes such as rising over the Throne, the Face, and the two Hands. They then differed over whether to interpret them figuratively or entrust them to Allah, adopting two positions or approaches. Abū al-Maʿālī’s earlier position was to interpret them figuratively, as he stated in al-Irshād. His later position was to prohibit such interpretation, as he stated in al-Risālah al-Nizāmiyyah, citing the consensus of the early generations as evidence that figurative interpretation is neither permissible nor obligatory.

As for al-Ashʿarī himself and the leading authorities among his followers, their position remained consistent in affirming the attributes known through transmitted revelation and refuting those who interpreted them figuratively—for example, those who say that “rose over” means “took control.” This is stated in all his books, including al-Mūjaz al-Kabīr, al-Maqālāt al-Saghīrah and al-Maqālāt al-Kabīrah, al-Ibānah, and others. This is also how everyone else reported his position. Even later scholars, such as al-Rāzī and al-Āmidī, report that he affirmed the attributes known through transmitted revelation; they do not attribute two positions on this matter to him.

Whoever claims that al-Ashʿarī denied these attributes and held two positions regarding their figurative interpretation has falsely attributed this to him. Rather, this was the approach of some of his later followers, such as Abū al-Maʿālī and others like him, who introduced elements of Muʿtazilī doctrine into his school.