or any of the Successors. We therefore challenge them to produce a sound criterion that distinguishes what may be affirmed in the religion by means of a solitary report from what may not. They can find no path to such a distinction except through baseless assertions—such as the claim made by some of them: “The fundamentals are the theoretical issues, while the ancillary matters are the practical issues.” This, too, is a false distinction.

For in practical matters1 two things are required: knowledge and action. In theoretical matters the very same two are required, and the “action” here is the heart’s love and hatred—its love for the truth indicated and entailed by those matters, and its hatred for the falsehood that opposes them. Action is not confined to the deeds of the limbs; the actions of the heart are the root, while the deeds of the limbs follow after. Every theoretical issue must therefore be accompanied by the heart’s faith, affirmation, and love; indeed, that is the very foundation of action. Many who debate questions of faith have been heedless of this, imagining faith to be no more than intellectual assent, devoid of deeds.

This is a most reprehensible and grave error. Many disbelievers were fully certain of the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—truthfulness, harboring no doubt whatsoever, yet that certainty was not joined to the heart’s action: loving what he brought, being pleased with it, willing it, and showing loyalty and enmity on its account. Do not neglect this point, for it is of the utmost importance; by it one comes to know the reality of faith.

Thus theoretical issues are practical, and practical issues are theoretical. The Lawgiver has not accepted from those who are accountable, in practical matters, mere action without knowledge, nor in theoretical matters mere knowledge without action.