the hadith tradition; it was the latter of Qādī Abū Yalā’s two positions and the position of Abū al-Hasan ibn al-Zāghūnī (1). It was also the position of many speculative theologians from among the Karrāmiyya and others. As for al-Asharī, the well-known position attributed to him is that each of the two is a report-based attribute. This was the position of many followers of the four imams, the former (2) of Qādī Abū Yalā’s two positions, and the position of the Tamīmīs and others among his followers] (3).
Many of the later [followers of al-Asharī] (4) denied that [Allah] is above the Throne [or in heaven] (5). These [are those who deny the report-based attributes, such as Abū al-Maālī and his followers; for al-Asharī and the leading authorities among his followers affirm the report-based attributes. (6)
(1) He is ʿAlī ibn ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Nasr al-Sarī. His biographical notice was given previously, 1/142.
(2) After the phrase “and it is,” there is a reference mark directing the reader to the margin. The original then contains the words “the two positions of,” but “the former” is not visible in the margin because the annotator wrote over it another comment that we reproduced above. I have added “the former” because it accords with the context.
(3) The passage between square brackets is absent from B, A, N, and M; it begins on the preceding page.
(4) B, A, N, and M read: “their later followers.”
(5) N and M read: “denied that Allah is above the Throne”; B and A read: “denied that Allah is above the Throne or in heaven.”
(6) After quoting the foregoing statements of Ibn Taymiyya, the following comment is written in the margin of manuscript ʿ: “Al-Ashʿarī affirms the descent, *tahawwul* (transformation), coming in canopies of clouds, the hand, finger, eye, face, foot, side, and the other attributes established in the hadiths. I have read his statements in *al-Ibāna*, and they indicate that he was a follower of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and held everything that Ahmad ibn Hanbal held. However, his later followers altered his approach and opposed him in many of the positions he adopted, causing those who examined their writings to assume that al-Ashʿarī’s own statements were likewise.”