The same applies (1) to his knowledge of the doctrine of the people of the Sunnah and hadith, even though he was one of the speculative theologians who wrote on doctrinal disagreements and was best acquainted with that doctrine. Indeed, he knew it better than all his associates—Judge Abū Bakr, Ibn Fūrak, and Abū Ishāq. These men, in turn, knew it better than Abū al-Maʿālī and his peers, and than al-Shahrastānī. [For this reason, what al-Shahrastānī reports] (2) of the doctrine of the people of the Sunnah and hadith is less complete than what al-Ashʿarī reports, for al-Ashʿarī knew it better than all of them, both in transmitting its positions and explaining their rationale.

This is analogous to a jurist who knows more about hadith than other jurists but is not himself a hadith scholar; or a hadith scholar who is more versed in jurisprudence than other hadith scholars but is not one of the leading jurists; or a scholar of Quranic recitation who knows more about grammar and inflection than his peers but is not one of the leading grammarians; or a grammarian who knows the Quran better than his peers but is not one of the leading scholars of Quranic recitation. There are many analogous cases.

The purpose here is to explain Allah’s condemnation in His Book of disagreement concerning the Book. This is disagreement expressed in words. As for disagreement expressed in action—by hand, sword, staff, or whip—it too falls within the meaning of disagreement.

The Khārijites, the Rāfidites, the Muʿtazilites, and those like them (3) fall into both categories. Kings who fight one another (4) solely for worldly ends fall into the second. Those who speak on matters of knowledge but neither call others to a doctrine they themselves have introduced nor wage war over it against those who disagree with them—whether by hand or tongue—are the people of knowledge, and their error is forgiven