is to be shunned—his testimony is not to be sought, no narrations are to be transmitted from him, no legal opinions are to be sought from him, and prayer is not to be performed behind him—may fall into this category. Shunning him is a disciplinary measure and a punishment intended to deter people from that sin, whether it is a religious innovation or something else, even if he has in fact repented or is excused.

For shunning serves one of two purposes: either avoiding the sins that must be shunned and those who commit them, or punishing the offender and making an example of him. As for shunning him by refraining from . . . (1) elsewhere.

This category includes Imām Ahmad’s shunning of those who yielded during the inquisition before being put in fetters, those who repented after yielding, and those who committed some religious innovation, even though they included leading figures in hadith, jurisprudence, Sufism, and worship. His shunning them, together with the Muslims who joined him, does not preclude recognizing their merit. Similarly, when the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered the Muslims to shun the three who had been left behind, this did not negate their earlier merits.

Indeed, it has been said that two of them participated in Badr, and Allah said to the people of Badr:

“Do whatever you wish, for I have forgiven you.”

One of the three was Kaʿb ibn Mālik, the Prophet’s poet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and one of those present at al-ʿAqabah.

This, then, is “a fundamental principle”: a worldly punishment prescribed by religious law, ranging from shunning to execution, does not preclude the person punished from being upright or righteous. This accords with the distinction I have explained between worldly punishment—whether prescribed by religious law or divinely decreed—and punishment in the Hereafter. Allah, glorified is He, knows best.