and commitment alike, for lack of the reflection that leads to assent. Or he may assent in his heart, yet neither acknowledge nor commit himself, because he follows his desires. If such a person repents and acknowledges what is obligatory and prohibited, both assenting and committing himself, is his situation comparable to that of an unbeliever who embraces Islam, since repentance wipes away what preceded it, just as Islam wipes away what preceded it?

The analogy is more remote in this case than in the preceding one. For anyone who requires a person who omitted an obligation on the basis of an interpretation to make it up, and annuls contracts and reverses the taking of possession in the case of someone whose interpretation is excusable, has even stronger grounds for doing so with this person, who sins by abandoning the belief required of him. As for the position we have established and affirmed to be correct, this case requires consideration.

It may be said:

This person is sinful and wrongdoing in neglecting to learn and to commit himself. Pardoning those who err in their interpretation does not necessarily entail pardoning him.

Alternatively, it may be said—and this is more clearly supported by the evidence and analogy:

This person is no worse off than the obstinate unbeliever who abandoned the Quran out of arrogance, envy, and desire, or who heard it, reflected upon it, and became inwardly certain that it was the truth from Allah, yet denied it out of injustice and haughtiness. Such was the case of Pharaoh, most of the People of the Book, and the polytheists: “It is not you they disbelieve; rather, it is Allah’s signs that the wrongdoers deny.” Repentance is like embracing Islam, for the one who said:

“Islam wipes away what came before it,”

is the very one who said:

“Repentance wipes away what came before it,”

and both statements occur in a single hadith