and some of the Qadariyyah—namely, “the repentance of one unable to perform the act,” such as an emasculated man’s repentance from fornication, or the repentance of a man with an amputated hand who is unable to steal, and similar cases of incapacity. Such repentance is valid according to the great majority of scholars, both Ahl al-Sunnah and others. Some of the Qadariyyah disagreed, on the grounds that someone unable to perform an act cannot be rewarded for refraining from it, but is instead punished for refraining from it. This is not so. Rather, the intention of someone who is incapable is subject to reward and punishment, as we have explained. We have also explained that firm resolve accompanied by ability places a person on the same footing as someone who fully performs the act.

Thus, if someone who is incapable does what he can, through his words and actions, to distance himself from the causes of sin, and forsakes and abandons it in his heart, he is exactly like a repentant person who is capable of committing it. The repentance of someone unable to complete the act is thus analogous to the persistence in sin of someone unable to complete it.

Another issue arising from this is “the well-known question concerning divorce”: if a man divorces his wife inwardly and firmly resolves upon it, but does not utter it, the divorce does not take effect according to the majority of scholars. According to one of the two reports from Mālik, however, it does take effect. Ahmad and other imams cited as evidence that it does not take effect the Prophet’s words:

“Allah has pardoned my community for their inward thoughts.”

An opponent objected: “What is pardoned here is only inward thought; a firm inward resolve is not inward thought.”

Their opponent replied: He said:

“so long as they neither speak of it nor act upon it.”

He thus stated that pardon for inward thoughts extends up to this limit, namely speaking of them