The fundamental premise from which this dispute arose was the belief that a believer could have no unbelief or hypocrisy within him. Some imagined that there was consensus on this, as al-Ash‘arī claimed. This was the root of the Murji’ah’s doctrine, just as the root of the Qadarī doctrine was their inability to believe in both revealed law and divine decree. Having adopted this premise, they split into two camps.

The Khawārij and Mu‘tazilah said: “We know with certainty that deeds are part of faith. Whoever abandons them has therefore abandoned part of faith, and when part of it disappears, all of it disappears, because faith is indivisible, and faith and hypocrisy cannot coexist within a person. Thus, those who commit sins will remain in the Fire forever, since they possess no faith at all.”

The Murji’ah—both their moderates and their extremists, such as the Jahmiyyah—said: “We know that sinners among those who face the qiblah will not remain in the Fire forever; rather, they will emerge from it, as established by hadiths transmitted through numerous independent chains. We also know from the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the leading scholars that they are not unbelievers who have apostatized. For the Book commands that the thief’s hand be cut off, not that he be killed, and the Sunnah prescribes flogging the drinker, not killing him. If these people were unbelievers who had apostatized, they would have to be put to death.”

This made the weakness of the Khawārij’s position apparent to the Mu‘tazilah, who consequently differed with them over the rulings applicable to such people in this world.

The Khawārij accept from the Sunnah only what clarifies statements left unelaborated, not what, in their view, contradicts the apparent meaning of the Quran. Thus, they do not stone the adulterer, nor do they recognize, for theft,