of his own with those who held these doctrines, nor through firsthand familiarity with their books. Nevertheless, his account contains extensive detail. He presents Ibn Kullāb’s doctrine on the basis of familiarity with it and an examination of his books, and discusses the disagreements concerning the Quran on the basis of several books (1).

But when he comes (2) to the doctrine of the people of the Sunnah and hadith, he gives only a general account, having received (3) most of it from Zakariyyā ibn Yahyā al-Sājī (4), and some of it from those among the Hanbalīs of Baghdad and others like them who had studied under him. What comparison is there between detailed knowledge and general knowledge? (5)

In some respects, this resembles (6) our detailed knowledge (7) of what Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—brought, as contrasted with our general knowledge of the contents of the Torah and the Gospel, based on what people have transmitted from (8) the Torah and the Gospel. It is likewise comparable to the knowledge that a Hanafi, Shāfiʿī, Mālikī, or Hanbalī has of his own school—whose foundational principles and subsidiary rulings, the disagreements among its adherents, and its proofs he knows—as compared with what is reported about the divergent positions of another school (9), for he knows the latter only in general terms.