for they define faith as nothing more than a verbal confession, even when it is unaccompanied by an inward affirmation. By that reckoning they label the hypocrite a believer, while still consigning him to eternal punishment in the Fire. In this they differed from the broader Muslim community only in name, not in the actual legal consequence. As for the divine attributes, the decree, and the matters of reward and punishment, they are closer to the Sunnah than many other dialectical sects whose statements depart from it.

The Muʿtazilah, on the other hand, deny the attributes and draw near to the view of Jahm; they also reject the divine decree. Thus, although they exalt the divine commands and prohibitions, and magnify the promise and threat—indeed, they take this to extremes—they nonetheless belie the decree, and from this angle a measure of polytheism attaches to them.

Affirming the divine commands and prohibitions together with the promise and threat while denying the decree is still preferable to affirming the decree while denying the commands, prohibitions, promise, and threat. For this reason, during the era of the Companions and their successors there appeared no one who denied the existence of commands and prohibitions or of reward and punishment; what did arise were the Qadariyyah, just as the Khārijites also emerged in that period.