Others maintained that repentance from one sin is not accepted so long as a person persists in another.

A third group drew a distinction: if the sin he continues to commit is of the same kind as the one from which he repented, the repentance is rejected; if it is of a different kind, it is accepted.

For example: a man repents of usury yet—God forbid—drinks wine and insists on doing so. Some scholars said his repentance from usury is invalid, arguing, “How can he claim to have turned back to God while obstinately persisting in another act of disobedience?”

Other scholars responded, “No; his repentance is valid, because usury is one thing and drinking wine is another.” This is the position adopted by the author—may Allah have mercy on him—who stated that, according to the people of truth, repentance from one sin is accepted even while a person persists in another.

Hence the matter is disputed: some hold it invalid, others hold it valid. The same debate arises when the two sins are of the same category. Suppose—God forbid—a man is afflicted with fornication and also with gazing lustfully at women. Is his repentance from fornication accepted while he insists on those lustful glances, or vice-versa? Here too scholars differ: some say it is sound, others say it is not.

The correct view is that repentance from one sin is indeed valid even if he persists in another. However, such a person is not granted the absolute title of “penitent,” nor does he deserve the full praise accorded to those who repent completely; for his repentance is partial and incomplete. He has repented of one sin, so its burden is lifted from him, yet he is not entitled