and defend it. Yet they erred in their approach, for the truth cannot be defended by denying what is true. This was because they had not properly understood what distinguishes the signs of the prophets.

The Ash‘ariyyah refuted innovations of the Mu‘tazilah, the Rāfidah, the Jahmiyyah, and others, exposed contradictions in their doctrines, and upheld hadith, the Sunnah, and the way of the community. Their explanations of the contradictions of the leading proponents of innovation, and their refutations of them, benefited many people. Al-Ash‘arī had himself belonged to the Mu‘tazilah and remained upon their doctrine for forty years, studying under Abū ‘Alī al-Jubbā’ī. When he abandoned their doctrine, he was thoroughly familiar with their principles, how to refute them, and how to expose their contradictions.

[As for what he continued to uphold of the Sunnah] (*), it was not peculiar to the Mu‘tazilah, but belonged to what they shared with the Jahmiyyah. As for the doctrines peculiar to the Mu‘tazilah, al-Ash‘arī did not side with them on any of these; rather, he opposed them in all their principles. In “questions of divine justice, religious designations, and rulings,” he inclined toward the doctrine of Jahm and others like him. Many groups, such as “the Najjāriyyah,” the followers of Husayn al-Najjār, and “the Dirāriyyah,” the followers of Dirār ibn ‘Amr, differ with the Mu‘tazilah concerning divine decree, religious designations and rulings, and the fulfillment of threats of punishment.

The Mu‘tazilah are among those furthest removed from the path of those who experience spiritual unveiling and extraordinary occurrences, and from the path of the Sufis; they denounce and disparage it.