Satan’s gaining mastery over him until he makes evil deeds seem appealing to him. His being inspired to wickedness was a punishment for his failure to fear Allah.

His failure to perform good deeds is not something that positively exists, such that one could say, “Allah created it.” Rather, it is an absence. Yet he is punished for it because he has failed to fulfil what he was created for and commanded to do. This entails punishment for an absence, but through the commission of evil deeds—not through punishments such as Hellfire and the like, which he deserves after the proof has been established against him.

As explained earlier, there are two views on whether a person is punished merely for the absence of the commanded act. The majority say that he is not punished for it, because it is pure absence. They say that he is punished only for refraining from the act, which is something that positively exists. Another group—including Abū Hāshim—say that he is indeed punished for this absence, meaning that he is punished for it with Hellfire and the like, just as he is punished for committing sins.

What has been presented in this line of reasoning is a middle position: Allah punishes him for this absence through his commission of evil deeds, rather than by punishing him for those deeds. He does not punish him for them until He sends His Messenger to him. If he disobeys the Messenger, he then deserves the full punishment.

Initially, he was punished only with something whose evil he can escape by repenting of it