reject them. Ahmad and the majority of his followers also reject them, and their statements condemning and refuting them are very numerous. Nevertheless, among adherents of hadith generally, whether Hanbalīs or others, errors in affirming attributes are more common than among speculative theologians. Conversely, errors in negation are more common among speculative theologians than among adherents of hadith. For hadith came to affirm the attributes and contains none of the forms of negation peculiar to speculative theologians. The speculative theology inherited from the Jahmiyyah and the Muʿtazilah is founded upon negation that contradicts the explicit teachings of the Quran and hadith—indeed, sound reason as well. Yet they claim that reason establishes this negation. Other groups of speculative theologians have opposed them and gone further in affirmation, such as the Hishāmiyyah, the Karrāmiyyah, and others. Nevertheless, negation predominates in the innovated speculative theology condemned by the early generations.

Those Hanbalīs and others who identify with the Sunnah and make the term “reinterpretation” encompass both categories appeal to statements they find from the leading scholars concerning ambiguous texts. One example is Ahmad’s statement, as reported by Hanbal: “Neither a ‘how’ nor a meaning.” They supposed that he meant that we do not know their meaning. Yet Ahmad’s statements explicitly show otherwise in several places. He explained that he rejects only the reinterpretations of the Jahmiyyah and others like them, whose interpretations of the Quran depart from its proper interpretation. He composed his book, Refutation of the Heretics and the Jahmiyyah, concerning the ambiguous passages of the Quran that they rejected and interpreted contrary to their proper meaning. Thus he condemned their reinterpretation of the Quran