The Difference Between the Statements of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij Regarding the One Who Commits a Major Sin

Question:
Honorable Shaykh, tell us: What is the difference between the statement of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij regarding the ruling on the one who commits a major sin in this world, in terms of applying the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) and the like?

Answer:
The Khawarij hold that he is a disbeliever, and the rulings of disbelievers are applied to him. As for the Mu'tazilah, they say, "No, he is not a disbeliever and not a believer; he is in the intermediate state between the two states." It is as if his case is suspended with them until his final outcome becomes clear.
Both statements are invalid and contrary to the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslim community. There is no intermediate state between the two states. A person is either a believer or a disbeliever; there is no one who is neither a believer nor a disbeliever, ever. A person is either a believer or a disbeliever; there is no one who is neither a believer nor a disbeliever, ever. A person is either . There is no third category. A believer may be a pious believer or a disobedient, open sinner, but they are all included under the name "believer" and fall within the category of believers. The only difference between the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah is that the Khawarij declare him a disbeliever immediately, whereas the Khawarij [note: likely a slip for Mu'tazilah in the source] wait and say he is in the intermediate state between the two states. Yes, and this is an invalid statement; there is no intermediate state between the two states. Yes.