It may be said:

This, too, is one of Abū Hanīfa’s positions, on which the majority—including Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, and others—disagreed with him (1). Abū Hanīfa’s reasoning is that once the accused confesses, the legal effect of the testimony lapses; yet a confession is not acted upon unless it is made (2) four times.

The majority, however, maintain that the confession reinforces the legal effect of the testimony and does not invalidate it (3), because it accords with the testimony rather than contradicting it—even though the confession is not needed—just as when the number of witnesses exceeds four or the accused confesses more than four times.

In sum, the former is the position of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah: if it is correct, it is their position; and if the other position is correct (4), that too is their position.

It may further be said to him:

It is well known that the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah reject these rulings and refute those who uphold them with arguments and proofs of which the Imāmiyya are unaware.

[Response to His Allegations That Ahl al-Sunnah Permit Eating Dog Meat, Sodomy, and Amusements]

As for his statement:

“And permitting the eating of dog meat, sodomy with slaves, and amusements such as chess and singing, along with other issues that this abridgment cannot encompass.”

It may be said:

Attributing this to all of Ahl al-Sunnah is a lie, as is attributing it to the majority of them. Rather, some of these views were held by certain people who affirm the caliphate of the three caliphs,