they differed concerning these, as they explained in detail. They also differed over whether matters outside affirmation itself must be added to it for the designation of faith to apply validly. These include refraining from killing the Messenger, harming him, or venerating idols. These are acts of abstention; positive acts include supporting and defending the Messenger. They said: ‘All of these are added to affirmation under religious law.’ Others said: ‘Violating these requirements constitutes major sin, but does not take a person outside faith.’”

I say: Neither of these two positions is Jahm’s position. Yet whoever says this has acknowledged that faith is not merely the heart’s affirmation, nor is it a single thing, and has maintained that revealed law has modified its meaning. This undermines their foundational premise. For this reason, the most adept exponents of this school—such as Jahm, al-Sālihī, Abū al-Hasan, and Judge Abū Bakr—held that a person does not lose the designation of faith unless knowledge departs from his heart.

Abū al-Ma‘ālī said:

“(Chapter)
On Designations and Rulings

Know that our purpose in this chapter requires us first to explain the true nature of faith.”

He said: “This is a matter on which the Muslim schools have differed widely.” He then mentioned the positions of the Khawārij, the Mu‘tazilah, and the Karrāmiyyah, before saying: “As for the positions of our scholars, the discerning scholars among our hadith scholars and speculative theologians held that faith is affirmation. This was also the position of our shaykh Abū al-Hasan—may Allah have mercy on him. His view of the meaning of affirmation varied. On one occasion, he defined it as knowledge of His existence, His having no beginning, and His divinity.

“On another occasion, he said: ‘Affirmation is an inward statement, but it includes knowledge and cannot exist without it.’ This is what it entails, for affirmation and denial, truthfulness and falsehood, are more properly associated with statements.