for their innovations? They do so out of courage and partisan zeal, and they may be punished for following their desires without guidance from Allah—not merely (1) for the error they made while exercising independent judgment.

For this reason, al-Shāfi‘i said:

“I would rather speak in a discipline in which I am told, ‘You are mistaken,’ than speak in a discipline in which I am told, ‘You have disbelieved.’”

One of the faults of the adherents of innovation is that they declare one another unbelievers, whereas one of the virtues of the scholars is that they declare others mistaken without declaring them unbelievers. The reason is that a person may mistake something that is not disbelief for disbelief. [Yet it may indeed be disbelief] (2) for someone to whom it has become clear that it amounts to denying the Messenger and reviling the Creator, whereas this has not become clear to another person. Thus, if one who knows its true nature becomes an unbeliever by saying it, it does not follow that one who does not know its true nature must likewise be an unbeliever.

Regarding what they deem (3) to be disbelief, people follow various (4) approaches. Some say, “Disbelief consists in denying whatever is necessarily known to be part of the Messenger’s religion.” Yet people differ in their necessary knowledge of such matters.

Others say, “Disbelief is ignorance of Allah Most High.” They may then equate ignorance of an attribute with ignorance of the One described, or they may not; and they differ concerning which attributes are to be denied and which are to be affirmed.

Others do not define it by any fixed definition. Rather, they deem to be disbelief anything shown to constitute a denial of what the Messenger brought concerning faith in Allah and the Last Day. There are still other approaches as well.

There is no doubt that disbelief is tied to the divine message: denying the Messenger is disbelief, and hating him