Accordingly, the hadith in which the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) says, “Allah has pardoned my community,” is true, as is accountability for intentions that necessarily entail bodily actions.

Some people, however, held that a firm intention may exist without any action or speech. They then disagreed over whether it incurs punishment. Al-Qādī Abū Bakr and those who followed him, such as Abū Hāmid and Abū al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzī, held that it does incur punishment. Yet they have no evidence that a person is held accountable when no speech or action occurs.

Al-Qādī based this position on his principle concerning “faith,” in which he followed Jahm and al-Sālihī. This is also the position commonly attributed to Abū al-Hasan al-Ash‘arī: faith consists solely of the heart’s assent, even if a person denies it with his tongue and verbally reviles Allah and His Messenger; reviling Allah and His Messenger constitutes disbelief only outwardly; and whatever constitutes disbelief in reality cannot coexist with any assent in the heart.

This principle is unsound according to both revelation and reason. Indeed, leading scholars such as Wakī‘ ibn al-Jarrāh, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abū ‘Ubayd, and others declared those who held this view of “faith” to be disbelievers. This is unlike the Murji’ah among the jurists, who say that faith is affirmation by the heart and tongue: none of the leading scholars declared them disbelievers, though they did declare them innovators.

“Faith” and related matters have been discussed at length elsewhere, where it has been explained that some people believe things can exist without what they necessarily entail. They thus posit what has no existence.