why do you claim that he can be a believer through one without the other, when He wanted both?’

They are asked: “Suppose a man says, ‘I carry out everything Allah has commanded, but I do not acknowledge it.’ Would he be a believer?”

If they say, “No,” they are asked: “Then suppose he says, ‘I acknowledge everything Allah has commanded, but I do not act upon it.’ Would he be a believer?”

If they say, “Yes,” they are asked: “What is the difference? You have maintained that Allah wanted both things. If someone can be a believer through one while abandoning the other, then he can likewise be a believer through the other—by acting without acknowledging. There is no difference between the two.”

If someone objects, saying, “Suppose a man embraces Islam and acknowledges everything the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought. Is he a believer by virtue of this acknowledgment before the time for any action comes?” he is told: “He is given this designation only because he affirms that action is obligatory upon him and declares that he will perform it when its appointed time comes. At this point, he is not required to acknowledge everything through which he becomes a believer. But if he were to say, ‘I acknowledge it, but I will not act,’ he would not be given the designation of faith.”

I say: Imām Abū Thawr—may Allah have mercy on him—means that a person is not a believer unless, alongside acknowledgment, he commits himself to acting. If he acknowledges but does not commit himself to acting, he is not a believer.

This argument presented by Abū Thawr establishes the obligation of both acknowledgment and action. It demonstrates that each is part of the religion, and that a person is neither obedient to Allah, nor deserving of reward, nor praiseworthy before Allah and His Messenger except through both together. It is an argument against those who exclude actions from both religion and faith.

As for someone who says that actions are part of the religion, yet maintains that a sinful person is a believer because he has embraced part of the religion—which, in their view, is faith—while abandoning another part, a different argument must be brought against him. However, Abū Thawr and other scholars of the Sunnah generally direct their arguments against this group. Ahmad had a broader knowledge of the various positions and arguments than