because of kinship or some need. This is then a sin that diminishes his faith without making him a disbeliever, as happened with Hātib ibn Abī Baltaʿah when he wrote to the polytheists conveying some news about the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Allah revealed concerning him:

“O you who believe, do not take My enemies and yours as allies, offering them affection.”

The same happened with Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah when he defended Ibn Ubayy during the incident of the slander. He said to Saʿd ibn Muʿādh: “By Allah, you have spoken falsely! You will not kill him, nor will you be able to kill him.” ʿĀ’ishah said: “Before that, he had been a righteous man, but tribal zeal carried him away.”

It was because of this suspicion that “ʿUmar called Hātib a hypocrite, saying, ‘Let me, O Messenger of Allah, strike off this hypocrite’s head.’ He replied, ‘He was present at Badr.’” Thus, ʿUmar was acting on an interpretation when he called him a hypocrite, because of the suspicious act he had committed. The same applies to Usayd ibn Hudayr’s words to Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah: “By Allah’s life, you have spoken falsely! We will certainly kill him. You are nothing but a hypocrite arguing on behalf of the hypocrites.”

The same applies to the Companion who said of Mālik ibn al-Dukhshum, “He is a hypocrite,” even if he said this because he saw in him a degree of association with, and affection for, the hypocrites. Thus, those accused of hypocrisy were not all of one kind. Among them were outright hypocrites; others possessed both faith and hypocrisy; and others were predominantly believers but had a branch of hypocrisy within them. Many of their sins were assessed in light of how manifest faith had become. When faith grew strong, and its presence and strength became manifest in the year of Tabūk, they came to be reproached for hypocrisy over things for which they had not previously been reproached;