such weakness and deficiency as would require it to be inferior to the others. Such a contradiction is hardly out of character for them (1), for, owing to the extremity of their ignorance and injustice, they praise and condemn without knowledge or fairness. If Abū Hanīfa’s school is indeed the preponderant one, then their claim that it alone contains weak rulings whose like is not found (2) in the other schools is self-contradictory. If it is not the preponderant school, then their preference for it over the remaining schools is invalid. It therefore necessarily follows (3) that (4) the Shia are in error in either case. There is no doubt that they are people of ignorance and caprice: on every issue, they say whatever serves their purposes, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Their purpose here is to condemn every group belonging to Ahl al-Sunnah. Thus, from each school (5), they denounce whatever they deem blameworthy in it—whether their reports are truthful or false, and whether the criticism they voice is valid or invalid—even though the defects in their own school are graver and more numerous than those of others.

[Commentary on His Claims Concerning the Position of Ahl al-Sunnah on Prescribed Penalties]

As for his statement:

“He prescribed the penalty for a person guilty of illicit intercourse if he called the witnesses liars, but waived it if he affirmed their testimony. He thus waived the penalty despite the concurrence of confession and evidence. This provides a means of nullifying the prescribed penalties of Allah Most High, since anyone against whom witnesses testify that he committed illicit intercourse can affirm their testimony and thereby have the penalty waived (6).”