They permit building judgments on conjecture. Among the evidence they cite is what Al-Ghazali mentioned in Al-Mustasfa, where he says: "A chapter on refuting those who block the path of ijtihad with conjecture and do not permit judgment in Sharia except with definitive proof like the text and what is similar to it." As for judgment by opinion and ijtihad, they prohibited it and claimed there was no proof for it. The refutation of them is by showing the proof. I do not think anyone disputes ijtihad in determining the criterion for a ruling. For example, Zakat is only distributed to a poor person, and their poverty is known by a conjectural sign, and one only judges by the testimony of a just person, and their justice is known by conjecture. If they excuse all of this by saying that every servant is commanded to follow their conjecture in this matter, and their conjecture is certainly present, and judgment by conjecture is certainly obligatory, then we say the same about all other ijtihads. It is clear that Al-Ghazali's statement here compares the conjectural source of a ruling (i.e., opinion) to the conjectural determination of the criterion. However, the conjectural determination of the criterion relates to specific individuals, while its harm is general due to the generality of the ruling it is related to. Ibn Tumart's statement in "Al-Imara" and the difference between it and the origin, as we will see, is a refutation of this opinion of Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali went to consider opinion, which includes conjecture, as a basis for rulings, based on what he believed, which is that matters for which there is no text have no specific ruling to be sought by conjecture. Rather, he believed that the mujtahid by conjecture can only be correct, as they are only obligated by what reaches them, and error is impossible for them. Therefore, there is no need to be hesitant about conjecture and to adopt it in rulings. It is clear that Ibn Tumart, in invalidating conjecture, agreed with the Zahiris, and perhaps he was influenced by Ibn Hazm in particular, as it is likely that he encountered and studied his books.