What comparison is there, then, between one whose evil deeds [Allah] transforms (1) into good deeds and one who never acquired those good deeds (2)? There is no doubt that evil deeds are not commanded, nor may a servant commit them intending thereby to repent afterward. That would be like someone deliberately provoking the enemy to attack him so that he might defeat them through jihad, or rousing (3) a lion against himself so that he might kill it, when the enemy might instead defeat him and the lion devour him. Indeed, it is like (4) someone who intends to ingest poison and then take an antidote. This is sheer ignorance.
Rather, if someone afflicted by an enemy manages to overcome him, he is better than one who was never tested in that way. The same applies to one who encounters a lion, and likewise to one who happens to ingest (5) poison and is then given a [supreme] antidote (6) that prevents all poisons from permeating his body (7): his body will be healthier than that of someone who never took that antidote.
Sins harm those who commit them only if they do not repent of them. The majority, who hold that minor sins are possible in their case, [say] (8) that they are protected from persisting in them. Accordingly, what they have ascribed to them (9) is nothing but that which constitutes their perfection, for deeds are judged by their endings.